VURNIK & VURNIK

In the matter of *Vurnik & Vurnik*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife concerning property division. The dispute arose from the husband's consistent failure to participate in the proceedings and file necessary documents. The wife sought orders to prepare a specific property, the "Suburb J property," for sale and to manage the sale process, with the proceeds intended to form part of the capital in the parties' superannuation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it was just and convenient to grant the wife sole conduct of the sale of the Suburb J property, to authorise her to take steps to ready the property for sale, and to permit her reimbursement for expenses incurred in this process from the sale proceeds. The court also considered the husband's right to remove his personal belongings from the property and the subsequent disposal of any remaining items.

Bennett J reasoned that it was just and convenient to grant the wife significant control over the sale of the Suburb J property due to the husband's non-participation. The court authorised the wife, in her capacity as a director of the trustee company for the superannuation fund, to execute documents and take all necessary actions to sell the property. She was granted sole conduct of the sale, the right to enter and remain at the property to prepare it for sale, and sole use and occupation pending further order. The husband was given a limited window to remove his personal effects, failing which the wife was authorised to dispose of them. The court also detailed how the proceeds of sale were to be applied, including costs of sale, outstanding liabilities related to the property, reimbursement for insurance, payment of ASIC liabilities for the trustee company, and the balance to be held pending further orders. Liberty was reserved for the husband to apply to vary or set aside the order within 14 days of service.