SAYER & ASPLEY

In *Sayer & Aspley*, heard by Judge Roberts, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements and the division of property between the husband, Mr. Sayer, and the wife, Ms. Aspley. The court was required to make orders regarding the children's living arrangements and time with each parent, as well as determine how the parties' assets and liabilities would be divided.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of appropriate parenting orders, considering the principle of meaningful relationships with both parents and the impact of past situational family violence, which the court found unlikely to recur. The court also had to address the living arrangements for a 15-year-old child and the father's access to the younger children, particularly in light of his need for suitable accommodation. In relation to property, the court was tasked with assessing the credibility of the parties' evidence, acknowledging dishonesty from both regarding financial matters, and determining how to approach the division of assets when the court was unable to ascertain the existence or value of property located in a specified overseas country.

The court applied the Family Law Act principles concerning children's best interests and the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. It found that the 15-year-old child was capable of deciding her time with each parent, while the younger children would live with the wife. Parenting orders were made to facilitate the father's time with the younger children, contingent on him obtaining suitable independent accommodation, with specific provisions for school holidays to align with his work leave. In property matters, due to the inability to verify overseas assets, the court excluded them from the asset pool. The court ordered that the wife was to obtain a discharge of the husband's liability on the mortgage for the Victorian property and transfer his interest to her. Provisions were made for the wife to occupy the property exclusively and to pay the mortgage, with injunctions restraining the husband from further borrowing against the property or increasing the mortgage liability. If the wife failed to discharge the mortgage within 12 months, the property was to be sold, with proceeds applied first to sale costs, then the mortgage, rates, and finally the balance to the wife. The husband was made solely responsible for specific personal loans and credit card liabilities.