YATES & BREEN

This matter concerned a property settlement application brought by the applicant, Mr. Hillman, and the respondent, Ms. Carson, who had been in a de facto relationship for 13 years and had two children. Both parties sought an adjustment of property interests under s 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), with the court finding it just and equitable to make orders. Contributions were assessed as largely equal, and the respondent was to have primary care of the children.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' assets and liabilities, including real property and superannuation interests, and to consider an application for spousal maintenance. The court also had to address the issue of costs.

Carew J reasoned that a just and equitable outcome necessitated a division of assets that reflected the parties' largely equal contributions and their future needs, particularly in light of the respondent's role as the primary caregiver for the children. The court ordered that the applicant retain the property at Q Street, Suburb L, Queensland, and the respondent retain the properties at S Street, T Town, Queensland, and J Street, Suburb A, Queensland, subject to certain indemnities and conditions regarding existing liabilities. Crucially, the respondent was ordered to transfer 30 per cent of her splittable superannuation payments from U Super to the applicant. The respondent's application for final spousal maintenance was dismissed.

The court further ordered that each party retain all other assets in their name or possession, free from the other's claims, and bear responsibility for any debts associated with those assets. Orders were made to facilitate the execution of the property settlement, including empowering a Registrar to sign documents in the event of a party's default. Regarding costs, the court noted that previous orders had been made requiring each party to pay their own costs, and no further orders were necessary.