WAGSTAFF & WAGSTAFF

In the matter of *Wagstaff & Wagstaff*, heard before Judge Mercuri, the court was required to determine parenting arrangements for the parties' two children and to resolve a dispute concerning the division of their matrimonial property. The parenting dispute involved allegations of family violence, a lack of trust and communication between the parents, and the overarching consideration of the children's best interests. The property settlement dispute encompassed disagreements regarding various addbacks to the matrimonial pool, issues arising from a lack of financial disclosure, disputes over the valuation of assets, contested alleged loans from the husband's mother, and differing views on contributions made during the relationship, necessitating an approach to dividing the matrimonial pool on an asset-by-asset or joint basis.

The court's reasoning in relation to parenting focused on establishing orders that promoted the children's best interests, particularly in light of the identified difficulties in communication and trust between the parents. The court ordered equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father on an alternating weekend basis, along with specific arrangements for school holidays, birthdays, and other significant dates. The orders also included provisions for a parenting program, communication protocols between the parties regarding the children's welfare and education, and injunctions to prevent denigration of either parent in the children's presence.

In respect of the property settlement, the court made orders for the payment of $60,000 by the husband to the wife, representing his half share of a specific loan account. The orders further stipulated the transfer of interests in various properties and share portfolios between the parties, with each party assuming sole liability for associated mortgages and outgoings. The court also detailed the occupation rights of each party in specific properties pending finalisation of payments or sale, and specified which assets each party would retain to their exclusion, including bank accounts, vehicles, and superannuation entitlements. The court noted that these orders were intended to finally determine the financial relationship between the parties.