Spiros and Spiros

[2013] FCCA 517

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SPIROS & SPIROS [2013] FCCA 517

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property proceedings – long marriage – equal contributions – s.75(2) matters favour the wife – credibility of the husband in issue – husband’s attempts to remove property from the asset pool – 67.5/32.5 per cent apportionment in favour of the wife.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s.75(2)

Applicant: MS SPIROS

Respondent: MR SPIROS

File Number: DGC 1356 of 2011

Judgment of: Judge Hartnett

Hearing dates: 27 & 28 February 2013

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 21 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Milsom

Solicitors for the Applicant: Sabelberg Morcos Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Mercader

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mercader Barristers and Solicitors

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

1. The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child [X] born [in] 1996.

2. The child live with the Applicant wife.

3. The child spend time and communicate with the Respondent husband as agreed between the husband and the child.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Out of the monies presently held in trust on behalf of the parties the sum of $282,710.23 together with any interest accrued on that amount be paid to the wife and the balance to the husband.

2. The husband transfer to the wife at the expense of the husband the registered ownership of the 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer motor vehicle currently in the wife’s possession. 

3. The husband indemnify and keep indemnified the wife from all debts, liabilities and obligations relating to or arising out of any business and/or company in which he has or had an interest.

4. Each party forego any claim they may have to any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other.

5. Each party be solely liable for any and all debts, personal loans and other liabilities incurred in their individual names and indemnify the other party in respect of all such debt and liability.

6. Unless otherwise specified in these orders and save for the purposes of any monies due under these or any subsequent orders each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all other property (including choses-in-action) owned by or in the possession of such party as at the date of these orders;

7. Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Spiros & Spiros is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT MELBOURNE

DGC 1356 of 2011

MS SPIROS

Applicant

And

MR SPIROS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In these proceedings, the Applicant wife sought both parenting orders and property orders. The parenting orders will be made with the consent of the parties. They shall provide that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility of their son [X] born [in] 1996; that he live with his mother and spend time and communicate with his father as agreed. [X] is now 16 years and 8 months and these living arrangements accord with his wishes and are a continuation of those which exist now. The extant property proceedings, wherein both parties seek differing orders from the Court requires judicial determination.  

2. The wife relies upon Affidavits filed by her on 17 April 2012 and 29 January 2013, together with an Amended Financial Statement filed 7 August 2012. The Respondent husband relies upon Affidavits filed by him on 28 May 2012, 5 October 2012 and 13 February 2013, together with Financial Statements sworn 24 May 2012 and 13 February 2013.

3. Statements of fact in these reasons are findings of fact on the balance of probabilities.

4. The property orders sought by the wife at trial were as follows (as taken from her Outline of Case filed on 26 February 2013):-

   “5. That the balance remaining of the proceed[s] of sale of the former matrimonial property be divided as to 80% to the Wife and 20% to the Husband.

   6. That the wife /mother transfer to the husband all her right, title and interest in the business known as [J] and she transfer to or at the direction of the husband all positions and interests held by her or entitlements which she may have in [J] at the expense of the husband.

   7. That the husband/ father indemnify the wife/ mother from any liability arising from or in any way connected with the operations or activities of all his businesses.

   8. That each party forego any claim they may have to any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other.

   9. That each party be solely liable for any and all debts, personal loans and other liabilities incurred in their individual names and indemnify the other party in respect of all such debt and liability.”

5. The property orders sought by the husband at trial were that there be an 80 – 20 per cent adjustment in his favour of an asset pool comprising the net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home; the husband and wife’s superannuation entitlements; $26,000 of furniture which furniture he claimed could be retained by the wife; the Mitsubishi Lancer motor vehicle with a value of $10,000 which car he said could be retained by the wife; and the wife’s alleged inheritance of $4,739.74. This was a payment to him of $323,028.95.

History

1. The husband was born [in] 1959 in the Philippines and he is currently aged 53 years. The wife was born [in] 1959 in the Philippines and she is also aged 53 years. The parties met in September 1981. They commenced a relationship. In December 1988, the wife migrated to Australia. In mid-January 1989, she sent to the husband an application for a fiancé visa. He arrived in Australia in October 1989 and the parties married [in] 1989. This was the date of the commencement of their cohabitation. In 1996, their son [X] was born. The relationship became estranged in 2008 when the wife discovered the husband was having an affair. The parties were not however separated. The husband filed an Application for Divorce on 9 May 2011, but discontinued those proceedings in the face of the wife’s opposition to the application on the basis that the requisite 12 month period of separation had not occurred. The wife claimed the date of separation to be 4 January 2011 and not 4 November 2010 as claimed by the husband. Separation was under the one roof. The husband filed a subsequent Application for Divorce on 12 January 2012 and a divorce order was made on 29 February 2012 to become effective one month thereafter. The date of separation was 4 January 2011. Thus, the period of cohabitation of the parties was approximately 21 years. The parties finally physically separated on 28 May 2012 when the husband left the former matrimonial home. The wife and the parties’ son remained in occupation until the settlement of the sale of the home in October 2012.

Asset pool

1. The asset pool of the parties at the time of trial was:-

Assets

Value

a)      The net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home situate at Property V in the State of Victoria.

There will in addition be now interest on this amount.

$309,144.79

b)      Mitsubishi Lancer 2008 motor vehicle (registered in the husband’s name)

$10,000 agreed

c)      Berlina Holden 2010 motor vehicle  registration number [omitted] (previously owned by the husband or his company)

$25,000 (in husband’s Financial Statement sworn 24 May 2012)

d)      Various bank accounts with nominal sums in the name of the husband and wife

nominal

e)      Monies in a business account controlled by the husband and transferred by him to an account in the name of [E] Pty Ltd

$89,500

f)      Household contents

No valuation before the Court or agreed value of those chattels in each of the parties’ respective possession. No value is ascribed.

Liabilities

g)      Westpac visa card (in the wife’s name)

$10,200

h)      Westpac Altitude card (in the husband’s name)

$9,016.45

i)       Westpac MasterCard (in the husband’s name)

$22,400

j)       Westpac Classic Account Loan (in the husband’s name)

$1,539.25

k)      Woolworths Everyday Money (in the husband’s name)

$4,611.47

l)       Personal loans – friend and brother as alleged by the husband. No proof of this sum was placed before the Court

$53,000

Superannuation

[A] Super of the wife

(as at 13 October 2011)

$38,866.71

[M] Super of the husband

(as at 30 May 2012)

$15,034.94

Note A: Prospective inheritance

In addition to the above, are real properties held in the Philippines that remain in the name of the wife’s deceased father, Mr E. They have a current total value of approximately $26,755 (Australian dollars). The properties are to be divided between the wife and her five siblings. They will be subject to Inheritance Tax and the wife anticipates that she might receive the sum of $4,195.11. However, there has been no disposition of the properties to the present time and any disposition requires the agreement of all six children which has not eventuated to date. This is a matter the Court gives consideration to under the s.75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) matters. No adjustment in the husband’s favour in respect of same is made. The quantum is very small and significantly offset by those matters which require an adjustment in the wife’s favour.

Note B: Household contents

The wife included an amount of $25,000 for the household contents in her possession in her Amended Financial Statement filed 7 August 2012. The husband readily adopted that figure and claimed the wife had the benefit of such furniture and that in compensation he should receive a cash adjustment. The wife’s evidence given however was contrary to the furniture having anywhere near such value, and neither party provided a valuation to the Court nor sought any particular item to be left with, or given to, him or her. The wife’s evidence was that she gave away many chattels, they being of no real value, and received $500 for a washing machine, fridge and couch. She requested items from the husband being a painting, bone china and a stereo but the husband, despite repeated requests from the wife, refused to make any of those items available to her. There is no evidence of sufficiently probative value to ascribe any valuation to the furniture owned by the parties. They have divided it between them and what there was had no significant value, in the sense that no antiques or items of great cost were purchased by them during their years of cohabitation.

Note C: Personal liabilities

These are not sought to be adjusted by the parties. They are personal debts with no probative evidence as to any adjustment of them before the Court in any event. They are considered as financial obligations of the parties, pursuant to s.75(2) of the Act.

Contributions

1. At the commencement of cohabitation in November 1989, neither the husband nor wife had any assets of significance. In May 1994, they purchased, as joint proprietors, the former matrimonial home at Property V in the State of Victoria. The parties obtained a mortgage jointly with Challenge Bank Ltd. Both parties were gainfully employed and both contributed their earnings to the repayment of the parties debts, the payment of their living expenses and otherwise generally toward the family’s welfare. At the time of the parties’ son’s birth in 1996, the wife was working as a [omitted] and the husband as a [omitted]. Following the birth of [X], and a very short period of absence from work, the wife returned to the workforce in a full-time capacity and the husband took on night shift work to assist in the care of the parties’ son during the day. The wife’s mother came over from the Philippines and she remained for some years, helping the parties in the running of their household and care of their child. The husband also studied part-time during this period, completing a [qualification omitted] in 2002. The parties lived a life of overall equal contribution and applied both the entirety of their incomes and endeavours toward the acquisition of their assets, and for the benefit of their family unit, with such benefit including a trip home to the Philippines in December 2001. The husband by then had commenced to work for [omitted] where he remained employed for a period of three years until 15 March 2004. The wife remained in her occupation as a [omitted] and continues to be employed in that same capacity to this day.

2. On 1 January 2004, the husband registered a partnership business known as [J]. He and the wife formed the partnership. The husband had obtained a [qualification omitted] in the preceding year and commenced an [omitted] business. The newly established business provided [omitted] services and was initially operated out of the family home, which was noted as the business address on the Australia Business Register. Business premises were acquired in [omitted] in mid-2004, although some clients still attended at the family home for business purposes until about October 2009. The wife assisted the husband in the operation of his business by catering to those clients needs whilst they were in her home, during this time. The partnership made a net profit of $45,600.78 in its first and only financial year of trading and being the financial year ended 30 June 2005. Thereafter, the partnership ceased to operate and the husband began to operate his [business] in a company structure “[Mr Spiros] & Associates Pty Ltd” which was registered on 9 June 2005. The husband was the sole director and shareholder of this company. He moved its registered office to premises in [omitted] in 2005. The husband also set up other businesses during the continuation of the marriage. ‘[omitted]’ was a registered business established on 1 June 2003 that had ceased operations by October 2008. It provided additional funds for the family from [omitted]. [M] Pty Ltd was a company registered by the husband on 5 May 2010 of which the husband is a director and shareholder. The other directors and equal shareholders of the company are Ms M and Mr Y. The company’s registered office is at [address omitted], being the business premises of the husband’s [business]. This company was established to explore a business venture that did not materialize. The husband also entered into an arrangement with [omitted] to display their product at his business premises and receive a commission upon referrals made by him, but no referrals have been made. Likewise, the husband entered into an arrangement with [omitted] to receive a commission for referring clients to that Service. He received $5,000 in commission in the financial year ended 30 June 2012.

3. In December 2005, the husband’s son from a previous relationship migrated to Australia with financial assistance provided by his father. He took up residence with the parties for a time, though for what period is not in evidence before the Court. The wife treated him as her own son and cared for him accordingly.

4. The husband’s business was flourishing in that it provided a good lifestyle for the parties. In 2005 and 2008, the family travelled to the Philippines for a holiday and in 2007 they travelled to the US to attend the husband’s parents’ 50^th wedding anniversary. The husband’s income funded such travels. In 2008, the wife discovered that the husband was having an affair with Ms M, a [occupation omitted] who had worked with the husband since 2004. The wife was very hurt by this behaviour but determined to not discuss these matters with her husband, and to focus her attention on the care of the parties’ son. The husband claimed the marriage had effectively broken down in 2002 and his evidence is that the parties remained together for the sake of their son. However this evidence is not consistent with the parties continuing their marriage for another nine years, and engaging in the various activities that they did, in particular, those activities which included running a household together, caring for their son, going away together and doing things such as housework and maintenance tasks for the home and each other, and which went to establishing the continuation of the marital relationship. The husband may have commenced another sexual relationship, but he continued his marital relationship until its breakdown in early 2011. However, as the parties’ relationship deteriorated from 2008 onward, the greater share of the care of [X] was performed by the wife. [X] spent increasing amounts of time with his mother solely. His father was often not available to him because of his long working hours and/or increased social activities. The husband did continue to attend to the major maintenance tasks and repairs to the former matrimonial home throughout the parties’ occupation of same, and continued to apply his income to the household for the payment of food and utility bills and his son’s education. The wife also contributed her income. The parties ceased to have any real dialogue in late 2010 and separated early in the following year, albeit under the one roof.

Other Evidence

1. On 26 August 2011, and being some months after the separation, the husband transferred the sum of $40,000 from a business account owned and operated by him to an account in Ms M’s name. Ms M gave evidence on behalf of the husband in the proceedings. She is in a relationship with the husband but her evidence is that it is not a de facto relationship. She is an [occupation omitted], who in addition became a [omitted] in October 2012. She works in the business premises of the husband and alongside he and Ms J, an employee initially of the husband but now of a company owned by Ms M. Ms J gave evidence on behalf of the husband. She is employed on a full-time basis in what was the husband’s business and is in receipt of income in the sum of $48,000 per annum. Ms M is self-employed and is no longer an employee or sub-contactor of the husband. When asked about the husband’s payment to her of $40,000 on 26 August 2011, her evidence was that such amount represented monies given by her to the husband over the years, and accumulating, until on that day a sum of $40,000 was determined between them to be owing. Monies were said by her to have first become owing in 2007, and continued to be owed and in increasing amounts, to August 2011. No demands for payment had been made nor indeed in August 2011 were made, by Ms M; no interest was charged on the monies outstanding and there was nothing in writing as to any amount owing, how it was calculated, and nor when it would be repaid. These monies were then, some three days later, returned to the husband upon his request. The evidence of the husband and Ms M as to this money transaction was implausible and I find neither of them to be witnesses of credit as to this matter. The removal of $40,000 from accounts operated by the husband to Ms M was for the purpose of removing such monies from the asset pool of the parties. The return of the funds was fortunate for the wife and necessitated by the husband’s need to have Westpac Bank cease its investigation of the parties’ loan advances as considered in paragraph 15 of these reasons. This cessation came about when the husband applied the $40,000, together with a further sum, to repay the monies owing pursuant to the mortgage secured over the former matrimonial home in their entirety. The husband then claimed that Ms M remained owed an amount of $40,000 - which I find to be a complete fabrication - and thus he subsequently transferred his interest in ‘[Mr Spiros] & Associates Pty Ltd’ to her for the sum of $40,000.

2. On 2 April 2012, the husband registered a company known as [E] Pty Ltd trading as ‘[Mr Sprios] & Associates’. The husband was a director and shareholder of the company. Ms M was the secretary and a shareholder. On 3 May 2012, the husband transferred the sum of $3,500 from an account owned and operated by him to [E] Pty Ltd company account. On 1 July 2012, the husband transferred his shareholding in the company to Ms M, and resigned as a director.

1. The husband effectively gave Ms M the [omitted] business which he had built up over some years and with her, he established [E] Pty Ltd to run the slightly differently named business ‘[Mr Spiros] & Associates’. The husband transferred his share in [E] Pty Ltd to Ms M without monetary consideration and then commenced to run his own sole trader business, [S]. This was a [business omitted] commenced on 4 May 2012. The husband deregistered the business name ‘[Mr Spiros] & Associates Pty Ltd’ on 5 June 2012. The husband at trial was an employee of Ms M company structure and in receipt of $450 gross income each week. The husband had ceased to operate his business [S], although he retains its Australian Business Number.

2. In 2005 and 2006, and again in 2010, the husband applied for variations to the parties’ home loan, being in effect further mortgage advances without the knowledge or consent of the wife as claimed by the wife. Her signature appears on the loan documents but her evidence is that it had been forged. In September 2005, a further sum of $79,000 was borrowed, in 2006 a sum of $25,000 was sought and in 2010 a further sum of $50,000 was borrowed. The wife advised Westpac Bank that she did not sign the loan documents and the bank referred the matter to its fraud section and froze the operation of the parties home mortgage account. The bank contacted the husband. On 22 August 2011 and 26 August 2011, the husband paid the then outstanding balance of the mortgage loan which was in the total sum of $56,656.96, in part with the $40,000 he had sought to give to Ms M. The bank discontinued the investigation of fraud against the husband as he had paid the remaining balance of the mortgage loan. The wife then attended at the [omitted] Police Station on 21 September 2011 to report the matter of what she alleged to be two fraudulent signatures on two mortgage documents. The police questioned the husband but no findings of guilt have been made against the husband and as at 24 October 2012, there are no disclosable court outcomes.  There appear to be no charges pending.

3. The husband’s evidence as to the additional loan advances secured over the former matrimonial home was that the wife was well aware of each such further borrowing capacity and/ or borrowing and approved of the husband signing on her behalf. As to the further amount of $50,000 in 2010, the husband’s evidence was that such monies were used by the parties to provide a guarantee for the wife’s niece and her son to migrate to Australia on student visas. The husband’s evidence was that he funded such migration and some education expenses for the wife’s relatives. The funds obtained in 2005 were used on the parties’ usual living and on some business expenses, including the purchase of the car currently driven by the wife for a purchase price of $25,000. An amount of approximately $40,000 was applied to the various businesses. The $25,000 able to be borrowed further in 2006 remained excess capacity and was not actually drawn down by the parties. I accept that the parties’ lifestyle was in part funded by these amounts and accept the husband’s evidence that the wife was aware of such borrowings and their purpose in general terms. There is no conclusive evidence before the Court that the husband misapplied these funds or kept them out of the wife’s reach, although he may have in part. I cannot make such a finding however.

4. The husband signed his wife’s name on a form which he then provided to Centrelink to claim a lump sum payment of the Family Tax Benefit. On 9 July 2010, he received a lump sum amount of $7,018 together with a further amount of $580.35 and deposited these sums into the joint Westpac Classic account of the parties, but being an account the wife had not been issued a separate card in relation to. The husband then transferred these monies, on the same day, out of the joint account and into another account controlled by him.  In September 2011, the wife attended at Centrelink offices to query the payment of further Family Tax Benefit payments. She was advised that the payments had again been made to the husband and forwarded to his business addresses in [omitted]. The husband solely had the benefit of these amounts.

5. The husband claimed to pay almost all of the expenses of the parties whilst they were together. However his businesses gave him a personal income which was so minimal as to require no payment of taxation, beyond 2005. Likewise, the company returns submitted in relation to the operation of his businesses disclosed no taxable amount payable. Neither the husband nor those companies operated by him from time to time have paid taxation on income since 2006. Despite this, the husband’s evidence before the Court is that the family’s expenses, including holidays and the educational expenses of [X], which included an amount of $4,200 for a trip to Japan (in March 2012), [omitted] lessons, and the engagement of a tutor, were expenses met by him solely. His evidence was “([Ms Spiros]) never spent anything for the family because I paid for everything during the entire time we lived together” (paragraph 27 of the husband’s Affidavit sworn 13 February 2013). This is not borne out by the evidence.  The wife’s income was applied to family expenses and exceeded that of the husband if his taxation returns accurately stated his income. The monies further drawn down against the mortgage were also in part applied to the family’s living expenses.

6. The partnership of Mr Spiros and Mr Z operated a [omitted] business which ceased to operate in 2011. It had operated at a loss since its commencement in late 2009. Both the husband and Mr Z each placed an initial investment of $22,000 into this business. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the partners as to the totality of funds placed in the business by the husband. Mr Z gave evidence in the proceedings. His evidence was that in resolution of their business relationship he paid to the husband the sum of $37,500 on 12 May 2011. The husband did not account to the wife for receipt of these funds.   

7. The husband operated various bank accounts. He had a Business Cheque Plus account with Westpac Bank, number [omitted], which was essentially operated by him as a trust account for his clients. This had previously been an ANZ Business Advantage Trust Account. It had an amount of $72,299.22 deposited, but I find these monies not belonging to the parties but to the husband’s clients.

8. On 29 August 2011, the husband deposited into the ANZ bank account of [Mr Spiros] & Associates Pty Ltd (account number [omitted]) an amount of $89,500. This account was closed in April 2012 and its remaining monies transferred into an account in [E] Pty Ltd’s name. Ms M evidence as to the transfer of $89,500 from this account to that of a company controlled by her was that she and the husband agreed on the transferring of the funds, although she was not really sure why. It was a removal of $89,500 from the asset pool of the husband and the wife by the husband. This account represented in all probability and in part, the funds received by the husband and not accounted by him to the wife as described in paragraph 17 and 19 herein.

9. A Berlina Holden motor vehicle was purchased by the husband for the sum of $32,000 and registered in the husband’s company name. The husband then determined to give Ms M this vehicle together with a computer and office chairs being he claimed, the assets of [Mr Spiros] & Associates Pty Ltd (which company he had transferred to her in August 2011 for $40,000). This again was a blatant disposition of the parties’ assets to Ms M to ostensibly keep them out of reach of the wife. This car is now registered in the company name [E] Pty Ltd.

Section 75(2) of the Act Matters

1. The wife continues to work [omitted] and earns an average weekly income of $635 (or $33,436 gross per annum). At trial, she had three days of annual leave owing and no sick leave available to her. She suffers from a ‘heart’ medical problem which has caused her to collapse and be admitted to hospital on two occasions. She is on medication. She does not claim however that her capacity to be employed is restricted as a result of her health. The husband ceased to provide the wife with monies for the regular support of [X] in August 2011 and thereafter, was assessed to make payments. His current assessment, which is paid by him, is in the sum of $31.92 per month. This results in the wife meeting most of [X]’s financial needs and that is a reality that will continue to exist.

2. The husband has various health ailments. They include asthma, hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2 (noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus), hyperlipidemia, colon polyp and gout. There is no evidence before the Court that these medical problems cause the husband to be unable to be gainfully employed, although he asserts such medical conditions limit his employment capacity.  He has now become a employee of Ms M and in receipt of an annual gross income of $23,400.  His earning capacity exceeds this sum.

Conclusion

1. Having considered the above matters, the Court determines an apportionment of the asset pool which comprises the net equity in the former matrimonial home of $309,144.79, together with the two motor vehicles totalling $35,000, and the $89,500 in the husband’s business account with tax losses carried forward and no other amount to be paid out – a total of $433,644.79 (not including superannuation entitlements) as to 67.5 per cent to the wife and 32.5 per cent to the husband is appropriate. The wife will thus receive a total amount of $292,710.23 which is represented by her retention of a motor vehicle ($10,000) and receipt of $282,710.23, together with interest, from the trust account monies. The husband will receive $140,934.55 which is inclusive of the sum of $25,000 for the motor vehicle which he has transferred ownership of and the sum of $89,500 over which he has control. There is not a great deal of superannuation available to the parties and the difference between their respective entitlements is not large. The wife’s future needs exceed those of the husband in the case of the parties’ son and therefore no further adjustment is made to this part of their asset pool.  Further no splitting orders were sought by either party and the necessary procedural fairness afforded to the Trustee of any superannuation fund.

2. The wife incurred significant legal costs in determining the asset pool in this matter as a result of the husband not making full and frank disclosure and by virtue of his attempted removal of assets beyond the wife’s reach by divesting himself of assets and placing them with his girlfriend, Ms M.

3. Not only do the s.75(2) of the Act matters favour the wife, in circumstances where contribution is fairly equal, but the husband’s attempts to remove property from the asset pool available for distribution between the parties would, if successful, have produced a very inequitable outcome to the wife. Orders whereby each party keep their respective superannuation entitlements, motor vehicles (the husband has transferred ownership but retains use of the Berlina motor vehicle) and chattels and share in the net proceeds of the sale of the former matrimonial home and business sum of $89,000 in the apportionment proposed by the Court are, the Court determines in the circumstances of this case, just and equitable. The parties’ respective bank card liabilities remain as they have mostly been incurred, with each individually. There is insufficient evidence to do otherwise. Although the husband alleges a debt to family and friends no independent evidence was placed before the Court by way of corroborating evidence and the Court does not accept such monies are actually owed. The husband’s financial dealings are difficult to make conclusions about. They have not been transparent. The Court shall make orders which are just and equitable on the evidence before it.

I certify that the preceding twenty-seven (27) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett

Associate: 

Date:  21 June 2013