VINCE & VINCE (No.2)

In *Vince & Vince (No.2)*, the wife sought leave to proceed out of time with her application for property settlement against the husband. The parties had separated 11 years prior, and the application was brought in circumstances where the husband had received post-separation compensation from a WorkCover claim, which he had initiated during the marriage. Issues also arose concerning child support assessments in light of the husband's entitlement to regular post-separation compensation payments.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife leave to proceed with her property settlement application out of time, considering the significant delay since separation. Furthermore, the court had to assess the relevant factors under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the wife's prospective needs and the husband's post-separation compensation. A key legal question was whether contributions made by a party must be directly tied to assets available for division in property proceedings, and how to assess prospective needs in the context of justice and equity.

Judge Brown granted the wife leave to proceed out of time pursuant to section 44(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court reasoned that despite the delay, the circumstances warranted granting leave, particularly in light of the husband's post-separation compensation and the wife's prospective needs. The court applied principles of justice and equity, considering that contributions do not necessarily need to be tied to specific divisible assets to be taken into account. The court ordered a final settlement, including a payment of $52,000 to the wife, a transfer of 32.5% of the husband's current share portfolio, and a splitting order of $60,000 from the husband's Super Fund B Account in the wife's favour. The remaining assets were to be retained by each party respectively.