Warrick & Mia (No. 2)

This matter concerned an application by the executor of the estate of the late Mr Warrick (the Applicant) against Ms Mia (the Respondent) for property adjustment under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The proceedings were undefended by the Respondent, and the court proceeded to make orders in favour of the Applicant estate.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate property adjustment orders to be made under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), given the death of one of the parties and the undefended nature of the proceedings. The court was required to consider the asset pool for division, including a property owned by the wife and lottery winnings retained by the deceased husband, and to assess the contributions of each party to the marriage.

Foster J reasoned that it was just and equitable to make adjustive orders. The court determined that the asset pool for consideration comprised the wife's property at Suburb M valued at $1,550,000 and the husband's retained lottery winnings of $100,000. The court found it appropriate to notionally include the lottery winnings for adjustment, and conversely, to include any bank balance retained by the deceased husband as it may represent part of those winnings. The court also considered the wife's assertion of a debt to her mother for monies advanced to discharge the mortgage, determining that this liability should remain a private matter between the wife and her mother. Applying the principles from *Kessey & Kessey* (1994) FLC 92-495, the court focused on evaluating the weight of each party's contributions relative to the other, rather than precise mathematical valuations.

The court ordered that within three months, the wife pay the sum of $99,500 to the applicant. In default of this payment, the applicant was granted leave to apply for enforcement by way of the appointment of a trustee for sale of the subject property. The applicant also received leave to relist the proceedings for implementation or enforcement on short notice. Any application for costs was to be made by written submissions within 14 days, with response submissions due within a further seven days, after which judgment on costs would be reserved. Proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales that had been transferred to this court were dismissed.