TADEUSZ & TODD

In the Family Court of Australia, Cronin J considered applications by both the wife and the husband concerning their children and property. The wife sought permission for the child to travel internationally to New Zealand during school holidays, which the husband opposed, though not on security grounds. The parties also disputed the control and sale of a property registered in the wife's name, which was subject to an exclusive occupancy order in her favour and intervention orders preventing the husband's attendance. Further property disputes involved the wife's opposition to an immediate division of assets, citing her need for funds for renovations and living expenses, while the husband claimed to have exhausted his share of a partial settlement on legal fees and living costs. Discovery obligations were also addressed.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's application for the child's international travel, the terms under which the disputed property should be sold, and whether to make an order for the immediate division of assets. Additionally, the court needed to address the parties' respective obligations regarding disclosure and the husband's application for an adjournment to file further material, which he contended was necessary for natural justice.

Regarding the child's travel, the court found no impediment and ordered that the child be permitted to travel to New Zealand for the July 2018 school holidays, with the child's passport to be released to the wife for this purpose. The court also made orders regarding school enrolment, requiring agreement between the parties or further court orders. On the property at B Street, Suburb C, the court ordered that the wife have sole conduct of its sale, subject to her providing the husband with monthly reports on renovation works, costs, and funding sources. The proceeds of the sale were to be applied first to sale costs, then to discharge the mortgage, followed by a partial property settlement of $250,000 to each party, with the balance held in trust pending further order. The husband's application for an immediate division of assets was declined due to insufficient evidence to satisfy the court that such an order would be just and equitable. The husband's application for an adjournment was also declined, deemed futile in relation to the proposed orders.