Sulter and Sulter

In the matter of *Sulter and Sulter*, Stevenson J considered the division of property between a husband and wife. The dispute arose following the liquidation of the wife's sales business, which significantly depleted the parties' net property and impacted their standard of living.

The court was required to determine the appropriate distribution of the parties' remaining assets, specifically the proceeds from the sale of two properties, E property and P property. In doing so, Stevenson J considered various factors under section 75(2) of the relevant legislation, including the parties' history of hard work, their likelihood of re-establishing themselves financially, the duration of the marriage and its effect on earning capacity, and the need to protect a party continuing a parental role. The court also took into account the wife's current de facto relationship, which provided her with financial benefits such as rent-free accommodation, and the husband's immediate need to rehouse himself.

Stevenson J reasoned that an adjustment in favour of the wife was warranted due to her greater proportion of child care and the husband's historically larger income. While acknowledging both parties' desire to spend time with their child, the court anticipated they would resume their previous work patterns. The court concluded that a modest adjustment of 5% of the net pool of property in favour of the wife was appropriate, resulting in a division of the net pool of non-superannuation property as 45% to the husband and 55% to the wife.

The court ordered the sale of E property and the distribution of its proceeds in a specific order: first, to discharge mortgages and legal costs, then to pay council and water rates, followed by payments to the Office of Fair Trading and Y Leasing. The remaining balance was to be divided with 63% to the husband and 37% to the wife. The net proceeds from the sale of P property were to be distributed in the same ratio: 63% to the husband and 37% to the wife. Otherwise, each party was declared solely entitled to property in their possession.