Annesley & Annesley [2025] FedCFamC2F 1318 (19 September 2025)

1. That within ninety (90) days of the date of these Orders and simultaneously;

(a) The Wife shall pay to the Husband the sum of $560,837 ("the settlement sum").

(b) The Wife shall refinance or discharge the B Bank Mortgage secured over the property situate at and known as D Street, Suburb E NSW being all of the land contained in folio identifier ... ("the Suburb E Property") from the joint name of the parties into her sole name;

(c) The Husband shall do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the Caveat (...) registered over the Suburb E Property in favour of F Company is removed, withdrawn, or otherwise discharged prior to the transfer of the property in accordance with Order 3(e) below. This includes but is not limited to:

(i) Executing any necessary documents;

(ii) Providing written instructions to the caveator or its legal representatives;

(iii) Liaising with the relevant land titles office or registry; and

(iv) Paying any fees or charges required for the removal of the caveat.

(d) That in the event that the Husband fails to comply with Order 3(c) prior to the transfer in accordance with Order 3(e) below the following shall occur:

(i) The Wife shall be entitled to take all necessary steps to effect the removal of the Caveat (...) over the Suburb E Property;

(ii) The Respondent shall indemnify the Applicant for any costs, expenses, or liabilities incurred in doing so, including legal fees on an indemnity basis; and

(iii) The transfer of the Suburb E Property shall proceed notwithstanding the existence of the Caveat.

(e) The Husband shall sign all documents and do all things necessary to transfer to the Wife all of his right, title and interest in the Suburb E Property.

(f) That from the date of the transfer in accordance with Order 3(e) above, the Wife shall then indemnify and keep indemnified the Husband in relation to all outgoings in respect of the Suburb E property including all payments in respect of the mortgage, statutory rates and charges, utilities, house and contents insurance and outgoings including water rates, council rates and the like in relation to repairs and improvements and any other sums due or accruing in respect of the Suburb E property; and

(g) The parties shall do all acts necessary to close the bank account held with B Bank in joint names and to transfer all funds held in that account to the Husband.

1. From the date of these Orders until the transfer of the Suburb E Property in accordance with Order 3(e), the Wife is to pay the following costs and expenses with respect of the Suburb E property as and when they fall due:

(a) The premium in respect of the home and contents insurance;

(b) Council rates;

(c) Water rates; and

(d) Utilities bills.

1. From the date of these orders until the transfer of the Suburb E property in accordance with Order 3(e), the Wife and Husband are both restrained by injunction from further encumbering the Suburb E property without the written consent of the other party or by Court Order, save that which is necessary for the Wife to comply with Order 3(b) above.
2. Should the Wife be unable to comply with Order 3(a), then within a further sixty (60) days, the parties shall sign all selling authorities as may be necessary to enable the Suburb E property to be listed for sale, and for this purpose the following is to occur:

(a) The Suburb E Property is to be listed for sale by way of public auction with such licensed real estate agent as shall be chosen and agreed by the Parties in writing and in the event that the Parties are unable to agree upon the appointment of such licensed real estate agent, then such agent as may be determined by the President of the Australian Property Institute (NSW Division) for the time being or his or her nominee ("the Estate Agent");

(b) The Parties shall appoint and instruct such solicitor and/or licenced conveyancer as the parties may agree in writing and failing agreement, the solicitor be appointed by the President of the Law Society of New South Wales or his or her nominee.

(c) The Parties shall appoint such public auction licensed auctioneer as agreed to by the Parties in writing or, failing agreement, to be appointed by the President of the Australian Property Institute (NSW Division) for the time being or his/her nominee or as recommended by the Estate Agent ("the Auctioneer");

(d) The Parties shall sell the Suburb E Property at such price as the Parties shall agree in writing, and failing agreement, then at such price as may be determined by the Estate Agent to be the estimated market value of the Suburb E Property;

(e) The Wife will cooperate in allowing access to the Suburb E Property at all reasonable times to prospective purchasers and the Estate Agent and shall vacate the Suburb E Property during inspection times and when required by the Estate Agent;

(f) The reserve price shall be fixed by agreement between the Parties in writing and if no agreement is reached by fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduled auction date, the reserve price shall be determined by the Estate Agent appointed by the Parties;

(g) The Estate Agent shall nominate the date of auction, which shall be not more than four (4) weeks after the first listing of the Suburb E Property for sale;

(h) The Parties may attend the said auction sale of the Suburb E Property and in the event that the said reserve price of the Suburb E Property is not reached, the Parties or such of them as attend the said auction sale may negotiate with the highest bidder or any other bidder present at the said auction or any other interested Party in an effort to sell the Suburb E Property at a price not more than 5% less than the reserve price determined in accordance with Order 6(f) hereof;

(i) If contracts for the sale of the Suburb E Property are not exchanged within fourteen (14) days of the said auction, then the Parties shall relist the Suburb E Property for sale by private treaty with the Estate Agent and shall in the absence of any mutually agreed price in writing between the parties, list the Suburb E Property at the highest price offered and received by the Estate Agent within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of the said auction or such later date as the parties may agree in writing provided such sale price is not more than 8% less than the reserve price determined in accordance with Order 6(f) hereof;

(j) In the event that the Suburb E Property is sold by way of public auction, then each of the parties shall, upon demand, pay in equal shares the auction advertising and associated expenses. In the event that either Party should fail to do so, then the auction expenses shall be deducted from the defaulting Party's entitlement from the proceeds of sale of the Suburb E Property or reimbursed to the other Party if they paid the costs on behalf of the defaulting Party.

(k) The Wife shall do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the Caveat (...) registered over the Suburb E Property in favour of G Pty Ltd is removed, withdrawn, or otherwise discharged simultaneously with the settlement of the property in accordance with Order 6(n). This includes but is not limited to:

(i) Executing any necessary documents;

(ii) Providing written instructions to the caveator or its legal representatives;

(iii) Liaising with the relevant land titles office or registry; and

(iv) Paying any fees or charges required for the removal of the Caveat.

(l) The Husband shall do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the Caveat (...) registered over the Suburb E property in favour of F Company is removed, withdrawn, or otherwise discharged simultaneously with the settlement of the property in accordance with Order 6(n). This includes but is not limited to:

(i) Executing any necessary documents;

(ii) Providing written instructions to the caveator or its legal representatives;

(iii) Liaising with the relevant land titles office or registry; and

(iv) Paying any fees or charges required for the removal of the caveat.

(m) In the event that either party fails to comply ('the defaulting party') with Orders 6(k) and 6(l) above prior to the settlement of the Suburb E property in accordance with Order 6(n) below the following shall occur:

(i) The other party shall be entitled to take all necessary steps to effect the removal of the Caveat that relates to the defaulting party's interests that relates to the Suburb E Property; and

(ii) The defaulting party shall indemnify the other party for any costs, expenses, or liabilities incurred in doing so, including legal fees on an indemnity basis.

(n) Forthwith upon completion of the sale of the Suburb E property the Parties shall do all acts and things necessary so as to divide the proceeds of sale:

(i) In payment of any advertising, marketing or auction expenses on the sale;

(ii) In payment of the legal costs of the sale;

(iii) In payment of outstanding council and water rates and usual adjustments;

(iv) To divide the net proceeds of sale as follows:

1. as to 63 percent to the Wife; and
2. as to 37 percent to the Husband.

1. That from the date of these Orders the Applicant have exclusive occupation of the Suburb E Property until the transfer of the Suburb E Property in accordance with Order 3(e) or the settlement of the Suburb E property in accordance with Order 6(n).

1. As between the Husband and the Wife the Husband retain and the Wife have no right, entitlement or interest in H Pty Ltd ("H Pty Ltd").
2. From the date of these Orders the Husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents that are necessary to release the Wife from and indemnify the Wife, and keep the Wife so indemnified, in relation to any liability present or contingent associated with the Husband's interest in H Pty Ltd.

1. That within fourteen (14) days of the date of these Orders the Husband shall sign all documents and do all things necessary to transfer to the Wife all of his right, title and interest in Motor Vehicle 1.

1. Otherwise each party shall forever indemnify the other in relation to the property they are to retain pursuant to these Orders and in relation to any liability in their name not dealt with by these Orders, including but not limited to any liabilities, taxes and/or claims of whatsoever nature.

1. In the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument within fourteen (14) days of being requested to do so then the Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court be appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.

1. Save as to costs, the Wife's Application filed 14 May 2024 and amended 1 August 2025 and the Husband's Response thereto filed 17 July 2024 and amended 15 August 2025 are dismissed.

1. Should any party wish to pursue or make an application for costs, they are to file and serve within 28 days of the date of these orders an Application in a Proceeding specifying the orders sought as to costs, and any affidavit in support thereof. In the event of the filing of such application, orders will be made in chambers as to the filing of material in response and as to the listing of the application.
2. In the event no application of costs is filed pursuant to Order 14, any outstanding applications as to costs are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. Both the applicant wife and respondent husband in this matter seek orders for property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") subsequent to the breakdown of their seventeen-and-a-half-year marriage.

1. The parties commenced cohabitation in January 2006 and were married in 2006. They have two children, X who is currently 17 years and Y who is 14 years of age.
2. In 2021 the husband received a compensation payment of $1,390,000 net arising from his treatment whilst he was detained overseas in early 2016 when working as a media worker for a television network.
3. The parties separated under the same roof in May 2023. The children and wife remained living in the family home upon the husband vacating it in August 2023. X spent time with the husband prior to her ceasing all time in October 2023. Y lived with the parties on a week about basis until October 2024 when she too ceased spending regular face to face time with the husband.
4. Difficulties arose as to the arrangements for the payment of the mortgage on the family home and the wife filed an Initiating Application on 14 May 2024 seeking both interim and final property orders. Interim orders were made on a defended basis on 22 August 2024 mandating the transfer of $30,000 from a joint account of the parties to meet the mortgage payments for a period of no less than six months, and requiring the wife to otherwise meet the expenses of the family home.
5. A Divorce order was made in mid-2024.
6. The final hearing of the matter commenced on 4 September 2025.

1. The wife seeks orders in accordance with her Amended Application filed 1 August 2025.
2. The husband seeks orders in accordance with his Amended Response filed 15 August 2025.
3. The parties agree that the husband will transfer his interest in the former home to the wife and she will refinance the existing mortgage into a mortgage in her sole name. I am required to determine what payment of a cash sum, if any, the wife is to make to the husband upon such transfer.

1. The wife relied upon:-
   • Her Affidavit filed 2 August 2025;
   • Her Financial Statement filed 1 August 2025; and
   • The Affidavit of her mother, Ms J, filed 1 August 2025.
2. The husband relied upon:-
   • His Affidavit filed 15 August 2025;
   • His Financial Statement filed 15 August 2025; and
   • The Affidavit of his brother, Mr K, filed 4 September 2025.[1] Mr K was not required for the purposes of cross-examination.

1. As the trial began after 10 June 2025 the amendments to the Act pursuant to the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) now apply.
2. In determining whether it is just and equitable to make any property adjustment orders I must first identify the existing property interests and liabilities of the parties.[2] It must not be assumed that the parties' rights or interests should be different to that which already exists.[3] If a property adjustment is warranted, in considering what (if any) orders are to be made I must then consider:
   • the parties' respective financial and non-financial contributions;
   • the contributions made by each party as homemaker and parent;
   • the effect that any family violence has had on a party's ability to make contributions;
   • the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party;
   • any other order made under the Act affecting a party or child of the marriage; and
   • any child support a party has provided.[4]
3. I must then consider whether there should be any further adjustment to either of the parties arising from their current or future circumstances.[5]

THE EXISTING PROPERTY AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES

1. It is agreed that the parties' existing property interests and liabilities are:

1. The value of the wife's existing property interests and liabilities is $1,063,916.
2. The value of the husband's existing property interests and liabilities is $1,695,134.
3. The total value of the non-superannuation property and superannuation property of the parties is $2,759,050.

WHETHER AN ORDER ALTERING PROPERTY INTERESTS SHOULD BE MADE

1. It is just and equitable to make orders altering the parties' property interests as:
   • The parties in this matter, having married and mixed their finances as a family, have now separated. It is therefore not possible for them to continue to mutually enjoy the accumulated assets including the family home.
   • Both parties invoke s 79 of the Act seeking orders for property settlement.
   • The current legal interest of the parties needs to be changed or adjusted when consideration is given to the contribution and other factors identified below.

1. At the commencement of cohabitation both parties were employed on a full-time basis. The wife was the sole registered proprietor of an apartment in Suburb E ("the wife's apartment"). She had purchased this property in 1997 with her former partner for the sum of $158,500 and paid him the sum of $30,000 in 1999 by way of property adjustment for her to retain the property. Whilst there is no evidence to ground a finding as to its value at the commencement of cohabitation, it was sold in late 2006 for $377,500 with the husband accepting in cross-examination that the wife received the net proceeds of $180,000. The wife otherwise had superannuation entitlements of $40,000, a motor vehicle, furniture and personal possessions.
2. The husband had superannuation entitlements of $100,000, a half share interest in a boat with an agreed value of $10,000, and personal possessions including work equipment with an agreed value of $10,000. I am unable to make a finding on the parties' competing evidence as to whether the husband owned or had the use of a company motor vehicle. Having regard to the current value of the property pool and the length of the relationship, its asserted value is of little significance in any event.
3. I am satisfied and find that the wife's direct financial contributions at the commencement of the relationship were superior to the husband.
4. At the commencement of cohabitation the husband moved into the wife's apartment. He paid $250 per week towards the payment of the mortgage on the property and half the utilities.
5. In early 2006 the parties purchased a one-half interest in a property at Suburb L ("the Suburb L property") for the total sum of $915,000 together with Ms J, the wife's mother who was on title as to the other half. The property comprised two separate self-contained units. The parties borrowed $457,500 for their one-half interest in the property and lived in one apartment whilst Ms J rented out the other unit. The husband has not met his evidentiary burden to ground a finding that the $15,115 in stamp duty costs was funded by the sale of his motor vehicle. It is disputed by the wife and there is no documentary evidence to corroborate same. The husband conceded that the parties would not have been able to purchase this property without the assistance of Ms J but denies the wife's assertion that Ms J paid the mortgage insurance for the property of $20,000. The wife has also not met her evidentiary burden to ground such a finding. Her evidence as to this assertion is cursory. It is not deposed to by Ms J and there is no documentary evidence to support same.
6. The husband undertook general maintenance and odd jobs on both apartments at the Suburb L property. It is agreed that the husband's brother, a builder, undertook renovations to the apartment occupied by the parties and was able to obtain materials at trade prices.
7. Subsequent to their taking occupation of the Suburb L property the wife rented out her Suburb E apartment, with the rental monies received funding the loan on the property. The husband undertook some minor renovations to the wife's apartment prior to its sale in late 2006 for $377,500. In cross-examination the husband accepted the wife received the "net proceeds of $180,000". In those circumstances, I reject the submission made by the husband that such sum was prior to selling costs. I accept the wife's assertion, as the husband's evidence was equivocal, that from the sale proceeds the sum of $100,000 was applied to the offset account for the Suburb L property. I accept the wife's unchallenged evidence that from the net proceeds the sum of $50,000 repaid the loan taken for the deposit on the Suburb L property and $20,000 was applied towards the car loan for Motor Vehicle 2. The wife's assertion that $5,000 was applied towards an alleged credit card debt is denied by the husband and I am unable to make a positive finding. Again, such figure is of little consequence in this matter.
8. I do not accept that the wife has established to the requisite degree that, as at the time of its sale, Ms J contributed the sum of $52,00 to the parties by way of "loss of income" as the parties had the benefit of a superior residence resulting in Ms J receiving $100 less rent per week for her apartment. It has no evidentiary basis.
9. The parties and the children (then aged 4 and 1 year of age respectively) moved to the United States for the husband's work from early 2012 to early 2015. During this period of time the Suburb L property was rented. After payment of the mortgage the remaining monies were applied to the joint offset/redraw account. I reject the husband's assertion that the wife, whilst not having a work visa, could have obtained employment at a new employer as "they would have been able to obtain a temporary work permit for her". It is speculative and not grounded on any evidentiary basis. It does the husband little credit to make such an assertion post-separation when he himself deposes that he was supportive of the wife's choice not to work and concedes that, at this time, he would for periods of time be away from the home, overseas, and often working long hours.
10. In mid-2015 the family returned to live in Australia as the husband received a promotion requiring his return. The wife subsequently obtained part-time work in the retail industry.
11. In early 2016 the husband sustained physical and mental injuries whilst working as a media worker in Country M where he was arrested and detained in a prison for several weeks and subjected to significant physical and verbal abuse ("the City N incident"). Upon his return to Australia the husband did not work for a month, suffering from insomnia, sleep disruptions and anxiousness. After subsequently working overseas on an assignment the husband came home and collapsed. The husband then did not work for four months. Following this incident the husband attended upon psychologist Dr O, psychiatrist Dr P, psychologist Ms Q and his treating general medical practitioner. Both parties consumed alcohol as a coping mechanism during this difficult time.
12. In late 2016 the Suburb L property sold for $1,650,000 with the parties receiving the sum of $400,000 net. In late 2016 the parties purchased a property in Suburb E in joint names for $1,100,000 ("the Suburb E property"). To fund this purchase the parties applied the proceeds of sale of the Suburb L property of $400,000 and obtained a loan secured by mortgage against the property from B Bank. Ms J paid the stamp duty liability of $44,325. The husband asserts that this was not a gift; it was a portion of the $82,500 Ms J owed the parties arising from a real estate agent "indicating" (to unknown persons) that there "should probably" be an adjustment of the profits "of about" 5 percent to take into account the difference in value of the two units resulting from the renovations undertaken by the parties to the unit they lived in. It is asserted that Ms J reneged on her original agreement to this adjustment. I do not accept this assertion. Whilst the wife concedes the parties were so advised, she denies Ms J ever agreed to it. Ms J was forceful in her evidence that she knew nothing of any such advice and at no time agreed to this arrangement. She gave direct, unchallenged evidence that at the time the Suburb L property was sold she and the parties sat down and compared how much they had each spent on the property and she paid them a "sum of money" to balance out their respective spendings. Whilst there is no evidence as to the quantum of the "sum" of money, this evidence was not challenged and I so find. In any event, the husband himself conceded that Ms J reneged on the purported agreement and I was not taken to any authority to support a finding that Ms J would be bound by law to complete any such agreement even if it existed.
13. The parties borrowed a further $30,000 in April 2017 to renovate the Suburb E property. The husband and his brother removed trees from the property.
14. In 2016 the husband made a claim for workers compensation benefits from his employer. He deposes that between 2016 and 2019 he worked "on and off" whilst participating in return-to-work programs. No particulars are provided as to what constituted "on and off" engagement in paid employment. He continued to struggle with feelings of depression, anxiety, low mood and motivation and was regularly attending upon his general medical practitioner. The husband further deposes that for the period 2016 to 2021 he worked "only intermittingly." Again, no specificity is provided. In 2018 he suffered an injury to his left elbow whilst at work, exacerbating an existing injury to his right shoulder on which he had had shoulder surgery in 2009, and his left shoulder which he had had surgery on in early 2018. He underwent surgery on his elbow in mid-2018 and had a six-week recovery period where "[he] could not do much at all."[6] During this period the husband further suffered an injury to his left shoulder, requiring a further two surgeries.
15. In 2019 the husband was declared unfit to return to work in his existing role and commenced a personal injury claim against his employer. In March 2019 the wife commenced work four days a week but subsequently reduced her employment to three days per week. Whilst the husband criticises this decision as unnecessary as he was "free and available" by this time, I accept that this was the extent of the paid work the wife felt she could cope with at the time acknowledging her other competing demands of caring for the children, her homemaker responsibilities, supporting the husband and assisting him with the litigation process. The husband himself conceded in cross-examination that the wife's support of him hindered her advancement in her employment. I accept the wife's evidence that during the two years of litigation the wife was offered a promotion but did not feel she was able to accept it as a result of her concern as to the husband's mental health and her responsibilities during this time to the family.
16. In November 2019 the husband established the company H Pty Ltd. He is the sole director, secretary and shareholder. A family trust is the corporate trustee.
17. In 2020 the husband was diagnosed with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder with anxious mood in association with a persistent depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder. A consultant psychiatrist reported the mother's symptoms of anxiety and depression arising from the continuing stresses of the husband's work injury and a diagnosis was made of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.[7] In August 2020 the husband received a lump sum payout of his workers compensation claim of $54,830. These monies were applied to the purchase of a new motor vehicle.
18. After two years of litigation, the husband settled his personal injury claim with his employer in mid-2021 and received a net sum of $1,390,000 after payment of legal fees. This sum was deposited into the parties' joint offset account and applied to the payout of a loan account in the amount of $200,219, further renovations to the Suburb E property, surgery on the husband's hip, motor vehicles, a boat, the costs involved in the application to convert the title of the property from company title to strata tile (which is yet to be completed), work equipment, and general living expenses. The sum of $386,512 remains and is item 2 on the Balance Sheet recorded in paragraph 16 above. The parties agree, and I accept, that this is a significant direct financial contribution made by the husband and the wife has made an indirect contribution to it. I do not, however, accept the wife's submission that the evidence supports an assessment of such contribution by the wife of 10 percent as there is no evidentiary basis to support same. Whilst I accept that the husband compromised his claim and thus there is no breakdown of the components of the settlement sum, I do not have the assistance of the husband's pleaded claim particularising the "Griffiths v Kerkemeyer" component of the sum sought by him. I do not accept the submission that the decision of Trench J in Gaspaldi & Gaspaldi [2008] FamCAFC 134 assists me; the "Griffiths v Kerkemeyer" component of the settlement sum in the region of 7.5 percent was not disputed in that matter.
19. The husband's evidence as to his engagement in paid employment post-2021 up to separation is again cursory, deposing that between the latter part of 2021 and the middle of 2023 he was slowly working towards getting back to work and had been able to obtain "some ad hoc contract work" but as his marriage broke down his mental health suffered.[8]
20. Whilst the husband criticises the wife's engagement in paid employment, both parties agreed that the parties juggled paid employment, childcare and homemaking responsibilities in different permutations, with the husband as the primary income earner and the wife as the primary carer of the children and predominantly responsible for homemaker duties including cooking, cleaning and laundry. The wife contributed financially by way of her part time employment, and the husband would assist in caring for the children and homemaker tasks including gardening, lawnmowing and cooking when he was not engaged in paid employment. I accept and find that each party contributed to the best of their respective abilities.
21. The parties separated under the same roof in May 2023. The husband vacated the Suburb E property in August 2023 and subsequently has had the expense of privately renting housing.
22. The wife and the children have remained in occupation of the property since this time, spending time with the husband as recorded in paragraph 4 above. The wife has thus had sole care of X since October 2023 and both children since November 2024.
23. Following separation the husband continued to pay for the family's private health insurance, the family mobile phone plan and internet account, the home and contents insurance, the joint credit cards and the wife's motor vehicle and insurance to a total sum of approximately $16,000.
24. From August to December 2023 the wife withdrew a total sum of $70,000 and the husband $34,000 from the parties' joint B Bank account. The wife otherwise placed a freeze on the account and the husband was unable to access his compensation monies deposited into the account. He was not receiving any income protection monies and was not working full-time post-separation.
25. The wife's evidence that in October 2023 the husband received the sum of $28,000 from the sale of a motor vehicle was not challenged and I so find. I further find on the uncontested evidence of the husband that in October 2023 the husband closed the NAB credit card and paid out the debt of approximately $8,300 and credit card debt of $8,478. In November 2023 the husband sold some work equipment for the sum of $11,000 and had the sole use of same. At around the same time he ceased paying the family health insurance, telephone bill, house/contents insurance and the insurance for the wife's motor vehicle.
26. In cross-examination the husband conceded that he received "$45,000 interim property" and deposed that he applied this sum to rent and legal fees. It appears that this concession refers to the monies received by the husband from the B Bank account and the sale of the work equipment, which is recorded above.
27. By the interim orders of 22 August 2024 the wife was granted exclusive occupation of the Suburb E property. The sum of $30,000 was to be transferred from the joint B Bank account to the B Bank home loan account to meet the principal and interest mortgage payments as when they fell due for a period of not less than six months, after which the wife was to be responsible for the mortgage repayments. The wife was to be responsible for paying the home and contents insurance, the council and water rates and utilities bills. The husband was directed to sell the boat and a motor vehicle with the proceeds to be applied to the joint B Bank account ("the interim property orders"). Thus, the wife was to have the benefit of occupation of the home with the mortgage to be paid from the account in which the husband's compensation monies had been deposited. This weighs in the husband's favour.
28. Despite the interim property orders, on 11 July 2025 the wife made a successful application for a moratorium on the mortgage repayments based on hardship that allows the wife to not pay any mortgage payments until October 2025. Whilst the husband deposes that the wife should be solely responsible for the payment of any arrears, interest or penalties owing on the B Bank account arising from the said moratorium, he does not seek such relief. This will be a contribution factored in his favour.
29. Subsequent to separation the husband has made two payments of child support totalling the sum of $434. As at 2 August 2025 the husband is in arears of child support in the sum of $3,149.
30. I assess the respective contributions in line with the parties' agreed position: a global approach applied to a single pool of property of both superannuation and non-superannuation property. The Full Court in Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25 at [35] reinforced the holistic approach espoused in Fields & Smith [2015] FamCAFC 57 and stated that the proper approach to the assessment of contributions is:

...not a mathematical exercise, but rather involves the identification and assessment of all of the parties' respective contributions, in a holistic way across the course of the relationship and in the post separation period to the point of assessment...

1. The husband submits that the parties' contributions as to homemaker, income and parenting during the relationship were equal save for financial contributions which favour him in the amount of 20-30 percent, with post separation contributions being equal. I do not accept the husband's submission that his contribution should be assessed at 75 percent, as his contributions were not superior to the wife's by a factor of three. Whilst the husband's compensation is a significant financial contribution, his proposal fails to accord appropriate weight to the superior direct financial contribution made by the wife at the commencement of the relationship, the contribution made by the wife's mother in purchasing the Suburb L property with the parties, and the wife's homemaker and parenting contributions both during the relationship and post separation. The wife's submission that the parties' overall contributions were equal however is rejected as unrealistic. The monies received by the husband for his compensation payment in comparison to the balance of the property pool attracts weight as does the circumstances of the wife's occupation of the home subsequent to separation as recorded in paragraphs 47 and 48 above.
2. Adopting a holistic approach the husband's overall contribution-based entitlement is assessed at 65 per cent. By way of cross check in dollar terms this equates to the wife receiving property to the value of $965,668 and the husband $1,793,383; a differential of $827,715.

1. The parties are of comparable age; the wife is 49 and the husband 47 years of age.
2. The wife is in good health. She currently works five days a week, seven hours a day as an administrative assistant with an annual salary of $67,368. The wife's mother gave evidence that the wife is undergoing study and aiming to increase her earning capacity. Whilst the husband in his affidavit criticised the wife for working one hour less each weekday, I accept the submission that it is reasonable in the circumstances of her having sole responsibility for caring for the children and having to transport them to extracurricular activities.
3. The husband has lived in Country R since early 2025. He intends to live in Australia once these proceedings are finalised. In April and May 2024 the husband commenced receiving income protection payments from S Company and T Company backdated to November 2023 from two separate income protection insurance policies taken out by the husband in early 2010. He did not disclose this to the wife. In the financial year ended 30 June 2024 his income protection payments totalled $54,221. He was unable to explain the discrepancy between this figure and his taxation return for the 2024 financial year which recorded an income of $40,285 gross.[9] The income protection monies received by the husband last financial year exceeds that deposed to by him in his Financial Statement by $33,383; such that last financial year the husband received $87,604 in income protection payments. I am unable to make a finding as to whether these payments "may" have included back payments as deposed to by the husband, there being no evidence to ground same with the husband himself asserting "I don't know". Thus, in the last financial year the monies received by the husband from his income protection monies exceeded the wife's income by $20,236.
4. The evidence as to the husband's ability to continue receiving these income protection monies is unsatisfactory. He has made no enquiries as to the age these entitlements may cease. It was within the husband's purview to place this evidence before the court. His only evidence as to his ability to continue to receive such payments is that he is "jumping through hoops" with the insurers every month with monthly meetings with his treating general medical practitioner and submitting monthly profit and loss statements to the insurers. As such, I will consider the future circumstances of the parties on their current circumstances; that is, in the last financial year the husband received income protection insurance higher than the wife's current income.
5. In addition to his income protection monies the husband has engaged in paid employment as a media worker. In the financial year ending 30 June 2025, the husband worked as a media worker earning an income through H Pty Ltd of $69,574 (of which $4 was interest).[10] The income statement for H Pty Ltd records expenses totalling $79,253. Such expenses include the costs of the husband's motor vehicle at $7,003, legal expenses of $18,000, office expenses of $8,320 and rent of $18,956. During his cross-examination the husband conceded that he claims expenses for his motor vehicle as a business tax deduction, he had no legal expenses in the 2025 financial year other than for these proceedings, that he no longer leased an office as of October 2024 and that the "office expenses" is just an accounting entry. Thus, the husband obtained benefits through H Pty Ltd.
6. The husband's health and capacity for gainful employment in the future is a significant issue for determination. It is the husband's position as contained within his written submissions that:

The husband contends that he cannot work in a fulltime capacity...[11]

...future needs favour him because he has limited capacity for work...[12]

There is no evidence that the Husband can, or has capacity to work.[13]

The apparent contradictory nature of the above propositions was not explained during oral submissions.

1. It is the wife's position that the husband has the capacity to earn an income by taking contracts as a media worker through his company, H Pty Ltd. [14]
2. The husband's evidence on this topic is cursory and lacking specificity. He deposes that since separation he has only worked on a limited basis and that:

I have had increasing issues with my hip and knees which, along with my mental health conditions, has greatly limited my ability to work.

...

Given my significant health issues and injuries, which are detailed herein, it is highly unlikely that I will be able to continue my career as a [media worker] in the same way, form, or even at all. I am currently not working and do not believe that I will be capable of working in the future.[15]

1. In his oral evidence the husband asserted that his obstacles in returning to work are:

The constant depressive episodes and the constant crippling anxiety that I haven't been able to get a grip of since the [City N] incident happened. And to compound now I have some more physical injuries that are pretty major. So I have to now deal with those as well.

1. Little weight is placed on the husband's belief as to his capacity to work.
2. As to the husband's current ability to work, it is not contested that the husband is required to undergo two further surgeries; a hip arthroscopy and a knee arthroscopy that cannot be undertaken concurrently. The husband was cross-examined as to his assertion that he will not be able to weight bear for a significant period, do any heaving lifting or work as a media worker as Dr U of Country R Hospital recorded on 6 August 2025 that the husband is not to weight bear for three weeks. Such a proposition ignores the balance of the doctor's notes that opines: "Considering the patient's job, he won't be able to work for at least 6-9 months (depending on further evaluation)" noting that "in total the physical rehabilitation program can be 6-9 months."[16] This opinion was for the first operation required by the husband. The same opinion was provided as to the second operation. The wife concedes the husband has no other qualifications; he has no tertiary or trade qualifications and has worked as a media worker for the entirety of his working life. He has not looked at re-training in any other area. Given the rehabilitation required by the husband post recovery which involves, for each operation, the use of a brace on the hip/knee for 3 months, no weight bearing for the first three weeks, gradual weight bearing with crutches, routine physical therapy two-three times per week and attendance at the gym for 6-9 months to strengthen the relevant muscle, I am satisfied and find that there will likely be a 12-18 month period, post these operative procedures, where the husband will be unable to engage in paid employment arising from his current physical injuries. That said, no evidence was adduced as to any likelihood of the husband's income protection insurance not being paid during any period he is not able to work as a media worker.
3. Doing the best I can on the limited evidence before me, I find that, on balance, the husband, subject to undertaking his medical procedures, has the capacity to earn an income in the future not dissimilar to that earnt by him as a media worker prior to the City N incident for the following reasons. A consideration as to the historical work of the husband and his current circumstances inform the findings on this topic. The husband engaged in paid work as a media worker subsequent to the City N incident; he earnt a gross income of over $95,000 in the six-month period from May to October 2023. His taxable income for the financial years 2019 to 2021 ranged from $159,816 to $187,607. He engaged in paid employment as a media worker in the 2025 financial year as recorded in paragraph 57 above. The husband did not adduce any particularised evidence as to any impediments or difficulties he experienced during those specific periods of employment, most particularly in the last financial year, that would support his current assertion that will not be able to fulsomely engage in employment in the future.
4. In evidence are records of statements made by the husband and his general practitioner in 2024 that they both felt the husband has recovered from the City N incident and any mental health issues arose from the breakdown of the parties' marriage. This does not assist in any findings as to the husband's current mental health. There is no current medical evidence that grounds the findings as sought by the husband; there is no medical evidence as to what effect, if any, the husband's prior diagnosed mental health issues has upon his capacity to engage in paid employment. Indeed, there is no medical evidence at all as to the husband's current mental health. The husband had the capacity to make application for the appointment of a single expert to adduce such evidence pursuant to Division 7.1.2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") but did not do so. The husband had the opportunity to adduce evidence from any treating medical practitioner pursuant to Rule 7.01 of the Rules. He did not do so. I do not accept the husband's submission that his continued receipt of income protection insurance grounds a finding that he has no capacity to work. I have no evidence before me as to the basis of such continued payments.
5. The husband deposes to being responsible for the following debts:
   • $22,808 to his brother;
   • $5,240 in income tax;
   • $106,123 in litigation loans; and
   • $103,842 in unpaid fees to Dowson Turco Lawyers.
6. Whilst the husband provides no evidence as to how the above debts were incurred, they were not challenged and I accept and find that he has these liabilities.
7. The wife has been able to meet her litigation expenses from income and financial assistance from her parents. The wife deposes in her Financial Statement as to being responsible for a loan from Ms J totalling $96,456 and a litigation loan of $20,516. She does not depose as to these liabilities in her affidavit. Ms J's evidence as to this loan is not detailed, merely that she and the wife have a verbal agreement that once the litigation is finished she would repay the funds loaned to her from any settlement sum received or, in the event she did not receive sufficient settlement funds, she would make fortnightly payments of a minimum of $500 per fortnight and annexes her record of funds that she has lent the wife totalling $96,456. In her oral evidence she was candid that the wife hopes to get a better job to repay her the funds, but if she was not able to repay her she would not force her to repay the monies. I accept her evidence and so find. I accept that the wife has a financial resource in her mother who deposed that she is prepared to lend the mother $267,000 to assist her in refinancing the existing loan secured by mortgage over the Suburb E property, accepting that this loan may not be repaid by the wife. Ms J was not challenged however on her evidence that she does not know if she would provide the funds to the wife to purchase a new property.
8. It is uncontested that the children are living with the wife and spending no time with the husband. The eldest child will be of majority soon, the youngest in just over three years. The husband's assertion that the children are able to get themselves independently to and from sport and other activities is not grounded on any evidence and I accept the wife's evidence that, as X does not have a driver's licence, she is responsible for transporting them to and from these activities and all their medical, dental, orthodontic and counselling appointments. I accept that, irrespective of their age, as between the parties the wife bears the full responsibility for attending to the needs of the two children on a daily basis. The wife is solely responsible for all expenses relating to the children of some $260 per week for each child. The parties agree that the husband is currently assessed to pay $85.65 per week child support and, as recorded above, as at 2 August 2025 was in arrears of $3,148.85. The husband concedes that he has limited capacity to pay any child support.[17]
9. The wife wishes to retain the Suburb E property where the children have lived for the past nine years. By agreement, the husband is to retain his superannuation property, comprising some 20 percent of the value of the property pool which he will be unable to access for some time. The wife has no plans to commence living with her new partner. The husband has not re-partnered.
10. The wife submits that an adjustment to the contribution finding should be made in her favour of 10 percent. The husband submits that he has significantly greater future needs than the wife which warrant an adjustment in his favour of between 5-10 percent.
11. The husband has a capacity to engage in paid employment as a media worker save for the period of time he requires to recover from his two surgeries. There is no evidence that the husband's income protection insurance monies will not continue during his period of recovery. He currently receives income protection insurance monies that exceeds the wife's income and has the ability to claim personal expenses as a tax deduction through his company. The wife is solely responsible for caring for the children including being solely responsible for their financial needs. The husband is to receive property valued at more than $800,000 than the wife. I am satisfied that the parties' future circumstances warrant an adjustment in the wife's favour of 5 percent. In dollar terms this equates to a further adjustment of $137,952.
12. The wife will thus receive property to the value of $1,103,620 and the husband $1,655,430; a differential of $551,810.

1. The parties agree there will not be an order made splitting their current superannuation entitlements. The husband now agrees that the wife be afforded the opportunity to refinance the existing loan on the property and he transfer his interest to her upon payment of a settlement sum. The husband says that the wife should have 60 days to do so, the wife seeks 90 days. The parties agree that this is not a justiciable issue. I accept the wife's submission that it be 90 days; X will be undertaking the Higher School Certificate exams this year and the balance of convenience lies with allowing her to complete these exams prior to possibly having to relocate. This will not cause significant delay in circumstances where these reasons have been delivered within two weeks of the hearing concluding.
2. Orders will be made as agreed by the parties that the husband do all things necessary to have the title of the Suburb E property changed from company title to strata title and that each party be responsible for half of the existing costs of C Company, together with any future costs arising from the conversion. Both parties agree that pending the transfer of the husband's interest in the Suburb E property to the wife or its sale the parties be restrained from further encumbering it (save to refinance) and for the wife to have exclusive occupation. The wife no longer presses for an order that the husband transfer to her any of his airline points. The parties agree that the husband will retain the entirety of the monies in the joint B Bank account and the husband will transfer Motor Vehicle 1 to the wife.
3. The wife is to receive property to the value of $1,103,620. The wife will retain superannuation and non-superannuation property with a total value of $1,664,457. She will thus be required to pay the husband the settlement sum of $560,837. The husband is to receive property to the value of $1,655,430. The husband will retain property with a value of $1,094,593 and receive the settlement sum of $560,837.
4. Each of the parties seek differing orders as to the mechanics of any sale of the property arising from the wife's inability to pay to the husband the settlement sum. No submissions were made as to same and there is no evidence to ground any findings as to the preferable orders. I have simply selected the wife's option of the sale proceeding at first instance by way of auction as it is the more transparent process, and in default by private treaty. Any dispute as to the solicitor or real estate agent will be determined by a third party. I have not made the order as sought by the wife as to the property being styled prior to sale as there is no evidence to ground same, and it can occur if the parties agree in any event. In the event a sale is necessary the usual form of order will be made as to each party receiving a percentage adjustment of the sale proceeds.
5. I am satisfied that such orders are just and equitable.
6. It is appropriate for the parties to have an opportunity to agitate their relief sought as to costs within a prescribed time frame specifying the terms of any orders sought. If no application in a proceeding is filed as to costs as prescribed, all outstanding applications for costs will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding seventy-nine (79) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Murdoch.

[1] Leave was granted to the Husband to rely upon same with the consent of the wife.

[2] Sections 79(2) and 79(3)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").

[3] Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52; (2012) FLC 93-518 ("Stanford").

[4] Section 79(3)(b)(i) and s 79(4) of the Act.

[5] Section 79(3)(b)(ii) and s 79(5) of the Act.

[6] Husband's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 130.

[8] Husband's Affidavit filed 15 August 2025, paragraph 149.

[14] As contained in the Wife's Outline of Case filed 28 August 2025, paragraph 19.

[15] Husband's Affidavit, paragraph 171 and 185.

[17] The Husband's Outline of Contentions, page 7, paragraph 2.6.