Sebastian & Sebastian (No.5)

In *Sebastian & Sebastian (No.5)*, Young J of the Family Court of Australia was required to determine the property settlement between the husband and wife. The dispute involved the division of the parties' assets, excluding their superannuation entitlements, and the allocation of specific properties, financial accounts, liabilities, and business interests. The court also had to consider the wife's entitlement to a portion of the husband's superannuation.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate percentage division of the parties' non-superannuation property, the specific allocation of various assets and liabilities to each party, and the method by which the wife's superannuation entitlement would be calculated and transferred. Additionally, the court was tasked with determining the terms of a lump sum payment from the husband to the wife, including provisions for default and interest, and the circumstances under which certain properties would be sold to satisfy this payment. The court also considered the husband's potential claim against an accounting practice and the wife's potential participation in any such proceedings.

Young J applied section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to divide the property. The court ordered a division of 66.5 per cent to the husband and 33.5 per cent to the wife, excluding superannuation. The wife was to retain specific assets and liabilities, and the husband was ordered to pay a significant lump sum to the wife within ninety days. The orders detailed the consequences of default, including the sale of the former matrimonial home and the Peninsula property, with proceeds applied first to sale costs, then to the outstanding lump sum, and any balance to the husband. The court also made detailed orders regarding the splitting of superannuation entitlements pursuant to sections 90MT(4) and 90MT(1)(a) of the Act and relevant regulations. Provisions were made for the husband to provide notice and share legal advice concerning a potential claim against X Partners, with the wife having the option to contribute to costs and share in any recovery.

The court made extensive orders regarding the property division, including the transfer of specific assets and liabilities, a substantial lump sum payment, and the division of superannuation entitlements. The orders also established a mechanism for the sale of properties in the event of default on the lump sum payment and outlined the wife's potential participation in legal proceedings against X Partners. Liberty to apply was reserved for various matters, and the court reserved all questions of legal costs for a future hearing.