Sunderland and Sunderland

[2018] FamCA 343

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUNDERLAND & SUNDERLAND [2018] FamCA 343

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Just and equitable – Where the parties commenced the relationship with limited assets – Where the wife has a professional degree but is now on a disability pension due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – Where the husband was working in the building industry but was permanently disabled in a motor vehicle accident for which he now receives a disability pension – Where the future of the wife appears more positive than the husband’s in that the wife may progress to better health and employment – Where the wife has contributed more of the care and supervision of the child than the husband – Concluded an adjustment is made to create a disparity between the parties favouring the husband in the ratio of 70/30 – Concluded the adjustment is just and equitable – Ordered the parties each retain sole right, title and interest in specified assets – Ordered that from the parties’ bank accounts the wife be transferred $78,350 and the husband to receive the remaining balances in the accounts

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

APPLICANT: Mr Sunderland

RESPONDENT:	Ms Sunderland
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER	Kelly Lawyers

FILE NUMBER: BRC 4378 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 18 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 16 and 17 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:	Mr Galloway
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Tubaro Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dr Brasch QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pippa Colman & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Downes

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Kelly Lawyers

Orders

1. That the wife retain all her right, title and interest and possession in the following:

   (a)       Her B Superannuation entitlements.

   (b)       Her beneficial interest in the C Trust.

   (c)       Her motor vehicle 1.

   (d)       Bank accounts in her sole name.

   (e)       All furniture and furnishings and chattels in her possession.

2. That the husband retain all his right, title and interest and possession in the following:

   (a)       His D Superannuation entitlements.

   (b)       His motor vehicle 2 and motor vehicle 3.

   (c)       All furniture and furnishings and chattels in his possession.

3. That the husband and wife sign all documents necessary to effect the transfer of monies to each party with respect to the Commonwealth Bank account number …03 and …11. The amounts to be transferred are as follows:

   (a)       $78,350 to the wife from account number …11.

   (b)The remaining balance to the husband of account number …11.

   (c)The entire balance to the husband of account number …03.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sunderland & Sunderland has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: BRC4378/2015

Mr Sunderland

Applicant

And

Ms Sunderland

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are competing applications for adjustment of interests in matrimonial property. The parenting dispute was resolved on the first day of trial.

2. The applicant, Mr Sunderland, is the husband, aged 50.

3. The respondent is the wife, Ms Sunderland, aged 43.

Brief History of Relevant Events

1. The parties began living together in mid-2005. At that time, the husband was working in the building industry. The wife had completed a professional degree. She had commenced a professional internship. The wife had a diagnosis of four years standing of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (“CFS”). The wife now receives a disability pension.

2. In 2006 the parties married. The husband was then 38 years, the wife 31. The parties had limited assets. Each had a car, some furnishings and a modest interest in superannuation.

3. In April 2008 the husband obtained higher paid work in the order of $150,000 per annum. The work required him to commute from Brisbane to E Town.

4. Just four months later, in August 2008, the husband was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident, which has left him permanently disabled.[1]  The husband now receives a disability pension.

   [1] Affidavit of the husband filed 21/03/2018, par 143

5. After the accident, the husband received income in monthly instalments through an income protection policy from G Insurance. He received $300,000 over the two years following the accident. The wife engaged in some part-time work for a few months at the F Centre after the husband was injured. There is no evidence before me of the income earned by the wife at this time. The husband also received from G Insurance a lump sum payout of $225,000 in 2011/2012, the balance of which is an item on the Balance Sheet.[2]

   2 Balance Sheet filed 12/04/2018 and Exhibits 6 and 7, Item 1

6. In 2012 the husband received payments from the insurance component of his superannuation policies, $108,241 from H Super and $105,000 from D Superannuation. These funds were later consolidated into the D fund. Some of that money has been released to the parties by agreement. Certain sums used for costs and other purposes have, by agreement, been included in the asset pool. A sum of $106,000 expended by the husband since 2014 is contentious. The wife presses for that sum to be “added back” or at least taken into account in considering contributions. The husband contends that it should not be added back. It should be seen in the context of post-separation conduct.

7. In 2009 the husband purchased a property in Suburb J which became the matrimonial home. I was told from the bar table that the title reflected a tenancy in common in the ratio 80/20 in favour of the husband. The purchase price was $340,000 of which $250,000 was borrowed from a bank. The Suburb J property was sold in 2017. The net proceeds are an asset under consideration.[3]

   [3] Balance Sheet filed 12/04/2018 and Exhibits 6 and 7, Item 2

8. In 2011, K, the only child of the marriage, was born. She is now six years old. Orders were made by consent on the first day of trial for her future parenting arrangements.

9. Eighteen months after their child’s birth, in 2013, the parties separated. The wife moved out of the family home with the child and went to live with the maternal grandmother, Ms C, in L Town. The husband remained living in the home.

10. The parties agreed to change the conditions of the loan to payments of interest only, however, the husband was unable to afford rates, insurance, maintenance and utility bills. He also had expenses arising from regularly travelling between Brisbane and L Town to spend time with the parties’ child, costs of the contact supervision service and legal costs from contested proceedings.

11. In 2017, the family home was sold. The net proceeds of sale are an asset under consideration.[4]  Thereafter, the husband moved to live in L Town himself.

    [4] Balance Sheet filed 12/04/2018 and Exhibits 6 and 7, Item 2

The Evidence

1. The documents relied on in respect of the application were as follows: 

   The [Applicant] Husband

   (a)Amended Initiating Application filed 21/03/2018;

   (b)Affidavit of the husband filed 21/03/2018;

   (c)Affidavit in Reply of the husband filed 6/04/2018;

   (d)Updated Financial Statement of the husband filed 21/03/2018;

   The [Respondent] Wife

   (e)Amended Response filed 29/03/2018;

   (f)Affidavit of the wife filed 29/03/2018;

   (g)Affidavit of the wife filed 31/03/2018;

   (h)Affidavit of C Trust filed 29/03/2018;

   (i)Amended Financial Statement of the wife filed 29/03/2018;

   Reports

   (j)Affidavit of Single Expert Dr M annexing report dated 19/02/2018 and filed 22/02/2018.

Approach to alteration of interests in property

1. In considering applications for alteration of property interests and transfer of property the Court must:

   (i)Identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in property;[5]

   (ii)Consider whether it would be just and equitable in the particular circumstances to make an alteration;

   (iii)

   If an alteration should be made, to consider the matters contained in

   
   

   ss 79(4) and 75(2) of the Act in coming to an adjustment;  and

   (iv)Analyse and consider whether the adjustment under consideration would be just and equitable.

   [5] Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116

1. Identify the assets and liabilities of the parties

1. The assets and liabilities of the parties are disclosed in the counterpart Balance Sheets which became Exhibits 6 (for the husband) and 7 (for the wife). The original Balance Sheet, filed with the court, is a part of each of those exhibits.

O’ship		Description		Wife’s value	Husband’s value
ASSETS
1	J	CBA Smart Access account no. …03 (as at 14/02/2018)		$173,856.85	$173,856.85
2	J	CBA NetBank Saver account no. …11 (as at 14/02/2018)		$104,108.43	$104,108.43
3	W	Furniture and Chattels		$1,000	$1,000
4	H	Furniture and Chattels		$4,500	$4,500
5	W	Motor vehicle 1		$5,000	$5,000
6	H	Motor vehicle 2		$3,250	$3,250
7	H	Motor vehicle 3		$1,500	$1,500
Total		$293,215.28	$293,215.28
ADDBACKS (and POSSIBLE ADDBACKS)
8	H	Superannuation depleted by the Husband since separation.		$168,951.37	Not Admitted
9	H	Agreed Addback – partial property settlement to Husband as per Undertaking		$5,000	$5,000
10	H	Agreed Addback – partial property settlement to Husband as per Undertaking		$12,000	$12,000
11	W	Partial property settlement to Wife  (less taxes)		Not admitted	$12,000 (less taxes)
12	H	Taxes/charges deducted from super funds withdrawn		Not yet known	Not yet known
13	W	Funds received by wife		Not admitted	$30,000
Total		$185,951.37	$59,000.00
LIABILITIES
Total		NIL	NIL
SUPERANNUATION
Member		Name of Fund	Type of Interest	Wife’s value	Husband’s value
14	H	D - Superannuation estimated as at 30/12/2017	E$22,000	E$22,000
15	W	B Super as at 30/06/2017	$30,448.74	$30,448.74
Total		$52,448.74	$52,448.74
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
O’ship		Description		Wife’s value	Husband’s value
16	W	Interest in a Testamentary Trust		Not quantifiable	Unable to ascertain
Total		$531,615.39	$404,664.02

** The husband is to pay to the wife the sum of $2,000 pursuant to a costs order made on 4 April 2017, payable within 28 days after final parenting orders are made in these proceedings.

Adjustment of interests in property

1. The revised Balance Sheet is as follows:

Item Number	Description	Value
1	Joint Funds	$173,857
2	Joint Funds	$104,108
3	Furniture and Chattels - Wife	$1,000
4	Furniture and Chattels - Husband	$4,500
5	Wife – Motor vehicle 1	$5,000
6	Husband – Motor vehicle 2	$3,250
7	Husband – Motor vehicle 3	$1,500
8	Husband – Superannuation – monies used for costs by husband	$62,000
9	Husband – partial property payment 21 November 2016	$5,000
10	Husband – partial property payment to husband	$12,000
11	Wife – partial property payment to wife	$12,000
13	Wife – partial property payment to wife (legal costs)	$6,000
14	Husband – D superannuation	$22,000
15	Wife – B Super	$30,449
TOTAL	$442,664

1. The husband retains those items currently in his possession or paid to him previously. They are items 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14, with a total value of $110,250.

2. The wife retains those items currently in her possession or paid to her previously. Those are items 3, 5, 11, 13 and 15, with a total value of $54,449.

2. Would it be just and equitable to make an adjustment to interests in property

1. The parties wish to finalise the financial relationship between them and distribute all jointly held funds.

3. Consideration of ss 79(4) and 75(2) of the Act in order to come to a just and equitable adjustment

Contributions under section 79(4)

1. When the parties began living together, each had few assets, mainly a car and superannuation for each. The husband was in full-time work. The wife was working on an internship which was, apparently, not completed.

Between 2005 and August 2008

1. The pattern of these early years of this relationship was for the wife to remain at home and the husband to go to work. The wife took over the management of the income earned by the husband. She negotiated with his creditors to resolve some outstanding debts. The wife’s grandparents lent the husband, and then forgave the loan, a sum of $1,500. The wife established a budget. The husband was thereafter able to save for and obtain a licence in order to work in the building industry.

2. The evidence suggests that the wife is organised, frugal and attentive to bills as they come in. By contrast the husband is disorganised, inclined to avoid paperwork (including tax returns and bills due for payment) to his own detriment. There was mutually beneficial support during this early period.

Between August 2008 and April 2013

1. After the accident in 2008, the husband was able to continue to financially support the wife through insurance income and various insurance payouts.

2. In 2009 he put $80,000 into the purchase of a family home and committed to repayment of the associated mortgage. The home was close by to his adult daughter, Ms N.

3. The wife continued to pursue on the husband’s behalf potential payouts and manage the work of meeting his medical needs. As always, the wife arranged for completion of tax returns including historical returns outstanding.

4. Early in 2011, the wife conceived the parties’ child, K, who was born later that year. Thereafter, the wife became concerned with the day to day care of the child. However, she continued to assist the husband in attending medical and medico-legal appointments. The wife contends that she attended to 80 per cent of cooking, cleaning and runabout duties of the household together with the majority of caring for the child.[6]

   [6] Affidavit of the wife filed 29/03/2018, pars 407 and 408

5. The husband contends that, both being at home, they were both involved both in the domestic work of the household and the care of the child.[7]

   [7] Affidavit of the husband filed 21/03/2018, pars 10-20

6. The husband asserts that the wife was “constantly fatigued since we met and had little energy. She would often sleep in the day”. This observation is consistent with the condition which gave rise to the grant of a disability pension to the wife, namely, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I accept that the husband was actively involved in the feeding, bathing, dressing and entertaining of the child, as well as in household work.

7. The wife concedes a 20 per cent contribution by the husband, but without resorting to percentages, I conclude that each party was fully engaged and committed to the care of the child and the work of the household.

Analysis

1. The parties started out on equal terms. The wife was qualified and had the potential to earn more than the husband. However, she was incapacitated for professional work, and the husband was aware of it from the start of the relationship.

2. During the relationship the husband made the huge majority of financial contributions. The paid work undertaken by the wife in late 2008, early 2009, was not quantified and is not claimed as substantial. The wife made an indirect financial contribution by attending to the husband’s debts and tax returns, budgeting and supporting him to find full-time work in the building industry. The wife managed the finances. The husband earned, and after his accident, received insurance income.

3. In the household the wife must be considered to have the same reduced capacity to undertake domestic work as she does for paid work.

4. After the husband’s substantial recovery from his accident, and certainly after the birth of the parties’ child, they each contributed to the welfare of the family, to the limits of their respective disabilities. The husband continued to make the whole of the financial contribution. He provided a home for the wife and, later, the child, between 2009 and 2013.

5. Overall, I consider that the contribution of the parties at separation favours the husband in the ratio 70/30.

Between April 2013 and date of trial - April 2018

1. During these five years there has been a fractious dispute between the parties over how their child should live and spend time with each of them. The mother was anxious and reluctant to allow time. The father was downcast by the mother’s idiosyncratic rules about how time could be spent.

2. By 6 April 2018, the wife had incurred legal costs of $187,075. A further $80,000 to $100,000 was projected to end of trial.[8] 

   [8] Exhibit 5

3. The wife’s family are said to have “assisted in the payment of costs”. The wife has held fears about the safety of the child in the care of the father, which were not dispelled by investigation of child safety authorities in Queensland. An ugly incident in the April 2015 led to a Domestic Violence Order being made, without admissions by the husband, for the protection of the wife. The husband has incurred costs of a significantly lower order, approximately $100,000 before costs began to be incurred for trial.

4. Overall, as a combined figure, the parties together have probably spent around $350,000 on their disputes.

5. Fortunately, the parenting aspect is now fully and finally resolved. During this five year period there have been regular attendances for the parties on court appointed experts (a psychiatrist and a family consultant for interview and observation) and also for court appearances. The parties have consulted psychologists for themselves and, in the case of the mother, for the child.

6. Money has flowed into this dispute in all these areas. During this time, and in particular, between August 2014 and to date, the husband spent $168,000 of his superannuation: $62,000 of that was on legal costs, which sum has been brought into account in the balance sheet.

7. Sadly, the wife applied herself to a detailed analysis of monies ($106,000) spent by the husband during this period.[9] “Sadly” is an appropriate descriptor, because there is no way for a  court to analyse 30 pages of transactions in order to come to a conclusion about what was being purchased, let alone whether the transactions represented wilful waste and self-indulgence in the manner that is contended for on behalf of the wife.

   [9] Exhibit 8

8. The wife had $30,000 by arrangement, $6,000 of which has been brought into account for costs.[10]

   [10] Balance Sheet filed 12/04/2018, Item 13

9. It was conceded, properly in my view, that the wife should not be audited over that expenditure of $24,000. Likewise, the husband spending $106,000 over a three to four year period in the circumstances set out above is not surprising. Travel, costs of contact centres, psychologists and daily living. That he went on two overseas holidays to Asia and spent money on alcohol and occasional online betting from time to time, does not affect that view.

Conclusion

1. I consider that since separation the wife has had the majority care and supervision of the child. No matter how much he would have preferred for it to be otherwise, the husband has spent relatively little time with the child in the past five years.

1. Accordingly, the contribution of the wife to her care and supervision has been greater than that of the husband.

2. The husband has spent more of the parties’ assets than the wife in the relevant period, but I do not consider that that spending falls within the definition of waste or goes beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances.

3. By date of trial, the contributions are assessed to favour the husband in the ratio 65/35.

4. The relevant matters to be taken into account are as follows.

Relevant factors under section 75(2)

The age and state of health of each of the parties

1. The husband is 50. He reported the state of his injuries to the psychiatrist [who was appointed as a Single Expert] as follows:[11]

   His right leg was injured in a motor vehicle accident in …2008, and he was subsequently in hospital for eight weeks. He suffered fractures and underwent a skin graft and has ongoing nerve damage. He suffers shooting pains occasionally, ‘It sort of cramps up at the end of the day’. He also suffered a left ankle injury, ‘It’s a chronic deformity. I get pain occasionally and I can’t weight bear sometimes’. The husband was granted an invalid pension in 2012. During the marriage the husband was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

   The husband is unable to return to work [in the building industry] or in the [company] at E Town. I accept the submission that he is unlikely to return to paid work at all. During the marriage the husband was prescribed medication for the Attention Deficit Disorder which he ceased to taking when it did not appear to assist him.

   [11] Affidavit of Single Expert Dr M annexing report dated 19/02/20018 and filed 22/02/2018, page 17

2. The wife is 43. She has been sufficiently unwell to have been granted an invalid pension in 2004. The wife reported to the Single Expert Psychiatrist that she was granted the pension for CFS and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Further, “the psychiatrist (at) the time said I had GAD (Generalised Anxiety Disorder) and depression”.[12] 

   [12] Affidavit of Single Expert Dr M annexing report dated 19/02/20018 and filed 22/02/2018, page 20

3. The wife has attended on various therapeutic professionals, psychiatrists and psychologists for most of her adult life. She has been prescribed various medications, currently takes Sertraline and also, to use her words “naturopathic stuff, a big bunch of it”.[13] The prognosis for the mother is described by the psychologist, whom she has most recently consulted, as “positive”. [14]

   [13] Affidavit of Single Expert Dr M annexing report dated 19/02/20018 and filed 22/02/2018, page 23

   [14] Affidavit of the husband filed 21/03/2018, Annexure E, page 3, paragraph (vi)

4. The analysis of the psychologist is as follows:[15]

   (vi)… it is considered that [Ms Sunderland] will restore normal functioning and positive mental state subsequent to mental health treatment and timely, constructive psychosocial stressor resolution…

   (vii)[Ms Sunderland] suffers from a moderate mixed mood disorder and fluctuations of available energy subsequent to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome partially resolved …

   [15] Affidavit of the husband filed 21/03/2018, Annexure E, page 3, paragraphs (vi) and (vii)

5. It is by no means certain, but more probable than not, that the wife will be able to enter the workforce and find work in the area of her qualifications. The resolution of these disputes over the child and the matrimonial assets will, on the evidence before me, effect an improvement in her health and will accelerate the process.

The income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment 

1. The parties both live in rented accommodation and have no significant assets other than the cash reserves in dispute. The wife has the benefit of security of accommodation. She lives in one of the four properties (all in one street in Suburb O, a suburb of L Town) owned by the C Trust. Her mother, referred to in this judgment as the maternal grandmother, is one of the four trustees and the only primary beneficiary of the trust.

2. The trust is due to vest in 2077, unless the four trustees agree otherwise. The maternal grandmother is 75, so the trust will not vest in her lifetime without agreement. The maternal grandmother also lives in one of the four properties of the trust. The four trustees have agreed that the wife and child may live in a trust property and pay rent to the trust at market value. The present rent is $270 per week. The maternal grandmother made a decision not to require a bond from the wife. It is probable that the wife will continue to live in this way at least during the lifetime of her mother.

3. It may be that the wife will be an ultimate beneficiary of the trust. That is a possibility. The nature of discretionary trusts makes that unpredictable.

4. The income of the wife is through Centrelink, being the disability pension and tax benefits A and B and rent assistance. She also receives $15.87 per week in child support from the father. Family members provide $80 per week as a contribution for groceries and supplements.

5. Family members have paid around $200,000 in legal costs for the benefit of the wife. Her position is a secure and supported one.

6. The husband also receives Centrelink income plus rental assistance. He has a boarder in his rented property who contributes half the rent, that is, $135 per week. The position of the husband is, as any tenant in a leased property, subject to market conditions.

Whether either party has the care or control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years

1. Orders have now been formulated by the parties which provide for equal time for the child with each of them. That arrangement commences in September 2018 subject to clear drug screens for the father.

2. The child is six and will need the care and support of her parents for a further 12 years at least. Each party is committed to her welfare.  

Subject to s 75(2)(3), the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under: (i)  any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or Territory or of another country; or (ii)  any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was established, or operates, within or outside Australia; and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party

1. As previously stated, the parties are in receipt of Commonwealth benefits.

2. Each has a modest superannuation fund. Neither is presently contributing to superannuation, nor has any capacity to do so.  

The duration of the marriage and the extent to which it has affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration

1. The parties lived together for eight years, separating when their only child was 18 months old. Having a child has had no impact on the earning capacity of either party.

Any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided, is to provide, or might be liable to provide in the future, for a child of the marriage

1. The husband pays child support from his Centrelink benefit. I have found that the husband is unlikely to return to the paid workforce. If he does, child support will be reassessed. Even if he does not, given the change in parenting arrangements, there may be a reassessment in any event. If the mother enters the paid workforce, likewise, there would be a reassessment.

Any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account

1. The husband has received payouts through insurance policies to compensate him for his injuries, pain and suffering and loss of employment after an accident. Some of those monies remain. There will be no further lump sum payments, and the husband is a permanent invalid. Part of the husband’s prognosis is that he may be dependent on a wheelchair within 10 years.

2. Although not certain, the future of the wife appears somewhat more positive. She is close to completion of her Master’s degree. She has a degree but is not presently fit to work. The indications are, from her psychologist, that with this prolonged dispute behind her the wife may progress to better health and employment.

3. Taking into account the more secure present position of the wife and somewhat more positive prognosis for income earning and future health, I consider that some adjustment should be made in favour of the husband. His position is much clearer and is inconsistent with security and re-employment.

4. An adjustment is made to create a disparity between the parties favouring the husband in the ratio of 70/30.

4. Analysis of whether the adjustment contemplated is just and equitable

1. The net asset pool is $442,664: 70 per cent equals $309,865; 30 per cent equals $132,799.

2. The husband will receive 70 per cent of the asset pool. He retains the following items, of which some are notional assets (by consent). They are items 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14, amounting to $110,250.

3. In order to receive 70 per cent of the pool, the husband must receive a cash sum of $199,615 from the monies in accounts. In real terms, the husband will have furniture and chattels, two vehicles and his superannuation fund. The cash sum will likely be used to pay the balance of outstanding legal costs and perhaps a deposit on a property in order to secure accommodation suitable to his physical needs, now and into the future.

4. The wife will receive 30 per cent of the asset pool. She retains the following items, some of which are also notional assets (by consent). They are items 3, 5, 11, 13 and 15, to a total of $54,449.

5. In order to receive 30 per cent of the pool, the wife must receive $78,350 as cash from the monies in accounts. In real terms, the wife will have current furniture and chattels, a motor vehicle and her superannuation policy. The cash sum will likely be held as a fund for contingencies.

Conclusion

1. I am satisfied that the outcome, on the basis set out above, is just and equitable and orders are made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding seventy-seven (77) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 18 May 2018.

Associate: 

Date: 18 May 2018