Sellen and Sellen & Anor

The case of Sellen and Sellen & Anor involved a dispute between the parents concerning their seven-year-old child, B, and the division of their property. The central parenting issue revolved around the proposed arrangements for B's time with the father, specifically whether B should spend four or five nights per fortnight with him during school terms and the structure of that time. The parents also had a high level of conflict. In relation to property, the parties agreed that the husband's contributions had exceeded the wife's, with contributions found to be in the proportions of 75 per cent to the husband and 25 per cent to the wife. They also agreed that an adjustment under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) was warranted in favour of the wife, but disagreed on the quantum of that adjustment.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, B, in relation to the proposed parenting arrangements, particularly the frequency and structure of time spent with the father during school terms and holidays. The court also had to determine the appropriate adjustment to the property division under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in favour of the wife, considering the differing submissions of the parties.

In determining the parenting orders, the court noted that the single expert was unable to recommend one proposal over the other. The court ultimately made orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with B to live with the mother, but to live with the father for four overnight occasions each fortnight during school terms, with specific arrangements for week 1 and week 2. Detailed orders were also made regarding holiday time, including shorter school holidays, Christmas holidays, and special days such as Father's Day, Mother's Day, birthdays, and Easter. The court also made comprehensive orders concerning overseas travel, including passport arrangements and notice requirements, and miscellaneous parenting orders addressing extra-curricular activities, communication between parents, and medical emergencies. Regarding the property settlement, the court found that an adjustment of 12.5 per cent in favour of the wife was appropriate, resulting in an overall division of property of 62.5 per cent to the husband and 37.5 per cent to the wife. This was to be effected through the father paying a sum of $696,413 to the mother's solicitors within 42 days, with provisions for the sale of the Suburb G property if this payment was not made. Further orders directed the father to sell or transfer three Country I properties, with 37.5 per cent of the balance of the proceeds to be paid to the mother. The court also made orders for the parties to retain specific assets to their exclusion.