Shimizu & Tanner

This matter concerned a property dispute between a husband and wife, heard by Chief Justice Bryant. The central disagreement revolved around the composition of the asset pool for division, with the wife seeking a *Kennon & Kennon* adjustment and arguing for the inclusion of the husband's significant post-separation earnings and certain donations he had made. The husband contended that his Japanese earnings, which were not taxed elsewhere, should not form part of the asset pool, while the wife asserted that his donations should be added back.

The court was required to determine whether the husband's post-separation earnings and his discretionary expenditure in the form of donations should be included in the asset pool for division. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the husband's tax liability in Japan on his earnings that had not been subject to taxation elsewhere, and whether these factors, along with other section 75(2) considerations, warranted an adjustment to the overall division of net assets, which stood at 40% to the husband and 60% to the wife.

Chief Justice Bryant reasoned that the husband's donations were a form of discretionary expenditure and therefore should not be added back to the asset pool. The court also found that the husband's high post-separation earnings were not to be included in the asset pool, nor was his Japanese tax liability to be considered. The court ultimately ordered the transfer of the husband's interest in the W Street property to the wife, along with a significant monetary payment from the husband to the wife. The division of other assets, including motor vehicles and household contents, was also specified, along with orders concerning superannuation entitlements and indemnities between the parties.