Senangus & Senangus

In the matter of *Senangus & Senangus*, Coleman J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning property settlement between a husband and wife. The core of the disagreement revolved around the division of assets, particularly the former matrimonial home.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' property, considering their respective contributions and the factors outlined in section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The central legal question was whether the proposed property settlement was just and equitable, notwithstanding any disparity in the parties' entitlements.

Coleman J found that the husband had made greater contributions to the marriage, particularly in relation to the initial capital and the ownership of the family business. However, this greater entitlement was adjusted to account for the husband's failure to meet mortgage repayments on the former matrimonial home after separation, during which period he resided there. The court determined that the section 75(2) factors did not warrant any further adjustment to the parties' entitlements.

The court ordered that the parties hold the former matrimonial home as tenants in common in the proportions of 62.8 per cent to the husband and 37.2 per cent to the wife. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $188,604.10 within 90 days, at which point she would transfer her interest in the property to him. The husband was also to indemnify the wife regarding all outgoings and liabilities related to the property. Provision was made for the wife to apply for an order for sale if the husband failed to comply with this payment order. The wife was ordered to indemnify the husband concerning any liability to the insurer of a specific motor vehicle. All other property was to be retained absolutely by the party in possession or ownership. Costs were reserved.