Wasen & Basara

In the matter of *Wasen & Basara*, heard before Justice Kemp, the applicant wife and respondent husband sought orders concerning the division of their property following their separation and subsequent divorce. The dispute centred on the equitable distribution of assets and liabilities accumulated during their 38-year relationship, including a property at B Street, Suburb C, NSW, and various financial resources.

The court was required to determine the respective contributions of the parties to the welfare of the family, encompassing both financial and non-financial aspects, including their roles as homemaker and parent. Additionally, the court needed to consider the effect of any proposed orders on the parties' earning capacities and to make orders for the division of their property pool, which included real estate and superannuation entitlements.

Justice Kemp found that the parties' contributions to the welfare of the family were equal, despite the husband being the primary financial contributor and the wife being the primary carer and homemaker. The court reasoned that while the wife's non-financial contributions were significant, the husband's financial contributions exceeded hers. Post-separation, the husband had largely met mortgage repayments and outgoings for the B Street property, while also acquiring a property overseas. Weighing all factors, the court assessed the parties' contribution entitlement as equal, resulting in an entitlement of $1,078,926.96 for the wife and $1,078,926.95 for the husband from the combined property and superannuation pool.

The court made orders requiring the wife to pay the husband a settlement sum of $119,659.76 within 90 days. Contemporaneously, the husband was to transfer his interest in the B Street, Suburb C property to the wife, with the existing mortgage to be discharged or refinanced at the wife's expense. Provisions were also made for the equal sharing of liabilities until compliance, and for the sale of the property by public auction if the wife failed to comply with the payment order, with specific terms for the sale process and the distribution of proceeds. The orders also stipulated that each party was solely entitled to other property and chattels in their possession and would be solely liable for debts in their own name, unless otherwise specified.