Whitehead and McKay

In the matter of *Whitehead and McKay*, heard by Judge Henderson, the dispute concerned the division of property following the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The court was required to determine the appropriate orders for the alteration of property interests between the parties.

The legal issues before the court involved the application of sections 90SM and 90SF(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider what orders were just and equitable to make, taking into account the financial and non-financial contributions of each party to the relationship and their property. Furthermore, the court was required to consider various factors relating to the parties' circumstances, including their age, health, financial resources, earning capacity, and responsibilities, as outlined in section 90SF(3).

Judge Henderson reasoned that section 90SM of the Act empowered the court to make orders altering the property interests of parties to a de facto relationship if satisfied that it was just and equitable to do so. The court applied the principles within section 90SM(4) and section 90SF(3) to assess the contributions of each party and their respective financial positions and future needs. The court considered the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party, the impact of any proposed orders on their earning capacities, and other relevant circumstances to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a sum of $111,505 to the applicant within 42 days. Additionally, the respondent had the election to either pay a further sum of $20,000 or split her superannuation to provide $20,200 to the applicant. In the event of a superannuation split, specific orders were made pursuant to section 90MT(1)(a) of the Act, binding the trustee of the superannuation fund. Thereafter, each party was to retain all other assets in their possession or control absolutely.