Thompson and Noble

In the matter of *Thompson and Noble*, Johns J granted the parties leave to proceed out of time pursuant to s44(6) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The dispute concerned the division of property and financial resources between the parties.

The court was required to determine the terms of consent orders that would finally determine the financial relationship between the parties and avoid further proceedings. These orders addressed the payment of a sum of money by the applicant to the respondent, the vacating of a property by the respondent and the applicant's sole occupation thereof, and the consequences of default in payment, including the sale of the property. The court also made orders regarding the transfer of a motor vehicle, the division of various assets including a business, company, trust, shares, savings, furniture, and superannuation, and the allocation of responsibility for liabilities.

The court's reasoning and the legal principles applied are reflected in the consent orders themselves, which were agreed upon by the parties. These orders demonstrate an intention to achieve a final and comprehensive resolution of the parties' financial affairs. The court applied principles of family law concerning property settlement, including the severing of joint tenancies and the allocation of assets and liabilities, to give effect to the parties' agreement.

By consent, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $11,750 within seven days, contemporaneously with which the respondent was to vacate the Suburb C property, granting the applicant sole occupation. In default of this payment, the Suburb C property was to be sold, with proceeds applied first to sale costs, then to discharge any mortgage or encumbrance, then to satisfy any outstanding portion of the payment with interest, and finally, the balance to the applicant. The applicant was also ordered to transfer a motor vehicle to the respondent within seven days at the applicant's expense. The orders further stipulated that the applicant would retain certain assets, including a business, company, trust, shares, savings, furniture, and superannuation, while the respondent would retain other assets, including savings, furniture, and superannuation. Each party was to be responsible for and indemnify the other in respect of liabilities in their respective names. The orders clarified that, unless otherwise specified, each party was solely entitled to property in their possession, foregoing claims to the other's superannuation, and that insurance policies would remain the property of the named owner. Each party was also to be solely liable for and indemnify the other against liabilities encumbering property to which they were entitled under the orders, and any joint tenancy was expressly severed. The court noted the parties' intention for these orders to finally determine their financial relationship.