Arroyo & Arroyo [2026] FedCFamC1F 148 (6 March 2026)

(a) the sale be conducted by a real estate agent to be agreed between the parties ("the Agent") and in default of agreement within 14 days the husband to nominate three Agents and the wife to choose one within 7 days;

(b) the terms and conditions of the sale to be as agreed between the parties upon the advice of the agent; and

(c) the reserve and/or sale price for the property to be as agreed between the parties upon the advice of the agent and in default of agreement to be determined by a valuer to be nominated by the President of the REIV.

1. Upon the settlement of the Sale, the proceeds be applied as follows:

(a) first, to pay all costs, commissions and expenses of the sale (including vendor/purchaser adjustments);

(b) second, to discharge the mortgage and any other encumbrances affecting real property; and

(c) third, the balance to be distributed between the parties equally.

(a) the wife have the sole right to occupy the Real Property; and

(b) the husband to pay all instalments in respect of the mortgage and outgoings for the Real Property as and when they fall due.

1. Within 60 days, the husband pay to the wife the sum of $12,401.5.
2. Unless otherwise specified in these orders and except for the purposes of enforcing the payment of any money under these or any subsequent orders:

(a) each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all property in the possession of such party as at this date including any jewellery, furniture, furnishings, shares and motor vehicles;

(b) moneys standing to the credit of the parties in any bank accounts to be the property of the party in whose name such bank account is held save for any joint account in which funds are to be divided equally and the parties do all acts and things to close such joint accounts;

(c) each party hereby foregoes any claims they may have to any superannuation benefit to or owned by the other. The party in whose name any such policy of superannuation or insurance stand shall be deemed to be the owner and the beneficiary of such policy to the exclusion of the other;

(d) each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to this Order; and

(e) any joint tenancy is severed.

1. The Husband and Wife do all acts and things and give all consents and execute all documents and writings necessary to give effect to the orders made herein.
2. In the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument, a Registrar of this Court is appointed pursuant to s 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:

(a) the non-defaulting party be appointed as Trustee and Representative in relation to the sale of the Property and be authorised to do all things and sign all documents on behalf of the Respondent to facilitate the sale of the Property including but not limited to:

(i) client authorisation and other such documents required by PEXA to enable digital signing;

(ii) State Revenue Office digital duties form;

(iii) discharge of mortgage documents;

(iv) transfer of land documents; and

(v) any other documents required to effect the sale.

1. The orders below have effect from the operative date:

(a) in accordance with paragraph 90XT(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court allocates a base mount of $94,164 to the non-member partner from the interest held by the member partner in Super Fund 1 - a division of D Pty Ltd ABN [...] ("The Fund");

(b) whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the member partner's interest in The Fund the non-member partner shall be paid an amount calculated in accordance with part 7 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2025 (Cth), using a base amount of $94,164;

(c) having been accorded procedural fairness in relation to the making of this order, Orders 9(a), (b) (d) and (e) are binding on the trustee of The Fund, E Pty Ltd ABN [...], AFSL [...];

(d) the operative date for Orders 9(a) and (b) is 4 business days after the date of service of a certified copy of Sealed Orders on the Trustee of The Fund by one of the parties; and

(e) pursuant to regulation 21 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2025 (Cth), any payments from the interest held by the member partner in the The Fund made after the Trustee has rolled over or transferred the transferrable benefits pursuant to these Orders to a complying superannuation fund of the non-member partner's choosing are not splitable payments.

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 the pseudonym Arroyo & Arroyo has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. This matter involves the applicant husband, Mr Arroyo born in 1975 ("the husband") and the respondent wife, Ms Arroyo born in 1981 ("the wife"). When the matter commenced for final hearing, the parties had parenting and property proceedings on foot and an Independent Children's Lawyer had been appointed to represent the children, X born in 2011 ("[X]") and Y born in 2014 ("[Y]") ("the children"). The parties were able to resolve parenting matters, however, the property proceedings remain for my consideration.

1. There is a minor dispute regarding key dates in the marriage. In around March 2008, the parties commenced cohabitation, married in 2010 and separated on either 12 February 2023 (husband's case) or 7 May 2023 (wife's case). The evidence does not allow me to establish the date the parties separated, and, in any case, the difference assumes little relevance.
2. The children have complex needs. Y was tested in October 2023 and was identified as being at a high risk of a learning disorder and having a dyslexia/dysgraphia profile. The wife gives evidence that Y has a long history of running away and hiding when distressed at school. X was first assessed for cognitive function in April 2022 where concerns were raised as to a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. A later assessment found that X's symptoms were better explained by high levels of anxiety. In May 2024 and June 2024, X attended upon a paediatrician where was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Similarly, Y around the same period was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. In late 2024, Y commenced taking methylphenidate hydrochloride.
3. The husband initiated proceedings in this Court on 10 November 2023 seeking orders in respect of parenting and property matters. On 18 December 2023, orders were made by consent for the children to live with the wife with the husband to communicate with the children by electronic means twice weekly.
4. On 1 February 2024, Senior Judicial Registrar Jenkinson made orders (amended 7 February 2024) for the wife to have sole use and occupation of the matrimonial home situate at B Street, Town C, VIC [...] ("[Town C] property") with the wife to pay all instalments in respect of the mortgage and outgoings for the property. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife $1,000 each Friday by way of spousal maintenance until further order.
5. On 10 September 2024, the matter was listed for final hearing before Judge Boymal for an estimated hearing time of three days. An updated Family Report was also ordered.
6. On 17 March 2025, the intended first day of the final hearing, Judge Boymal made orders transferring the matter to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). The net value of the non-superannuation pool was noted to be about $700,000.
7. On 27 March 2025, the matter was listed for final hearing and orders were made for the parties to file and serve any updating affidavits.
8. The orders of 1 February 2024 providing for the husband to pay the wife $1,000 weekly has not been discharged or varied.

1. The husband, by way of his Outline of Case, relies upon:

(a) Further Further Amended Application for Final Orders filed 25 February 2025;

(b) Financial Statement filed 25 February 2025;

(c) affidavit of Mr Arroyo filed 25 February 2025;

(d) affidavit of Ms F filed 25 February 2025;

(e) affidavit of Ms G filed 25 February 2025;

(f) reply affidavit of Mr Arroyo filed 13 March 2025; and

(g) Family Report filed 18 September 2025.

1. The wife, by way of her Outline of Case, relies upon:

(a) affidavit of Ms Arroyo filed 5 March 2025;

(b) Further Further Amended Response filed 4 March 2025;

(c) Financial Statement filed 4 March 2025;

(d) Family Report filed 17 September 2025;

(e) Child Impact Report filed 8 March 2024;

(f) DFFH Respondent filed 15 December 2025; and

(g) Therapy Report filed 6 December 2023.

1. A portion of those documents pertained to parenting matters and are no longer relevant or are no longer relied on. Following the filing of their Outline of Cases, and the adjournment of the final hearing, the husband filed an affidavit on 6 October 2025 and the wife filed an affidavit on 13 October 2025 updating the Court as to matters since the adjournment of the final hearing.

1. The husband seeks that there be an adjustment of the parties' assets of 55 per cent in his favour, primarily by reason of the assets he brought into the marriage.
2. The wife seeks that there be an adjustment of the parties' assets of 60 per cent in her favour. She then seeks spousal maintenance of $1,000 per week until the property at B Street, Town C, VIC, [...] ("[Town C] property") is sold. The parties agree that the Town C property should be sold, however, the property was damaged in a storm in February 2024 and an insurance claim was lodged. The Court was informed that works on the property commenced in December 2024 and are ongoing. Counsel for the husband during closing submissions gave evidence that it is common ground that the repairs are nearly finished and that the property will be ready for sale by December, but no agent has been appointed.
3. The wife seeks that there be an equalisation of the parties' superannuation interests. This is opposed by the husband who contends that the superannuation should be considered in a separate pool.

1. As the hearing in this matter commenced after 10 June 2025, in accordance with the new provisions of Pt VIII of the Act, it is first necessary to establish the existing property interests and liabilities of the parties (s 79(3)(a)), which then illuminates whether it is just and equitable to make any property adjustment order at all (s 79(2)).
2. If a property adjustment order is warranted, when deciding what order to make, the Court must consider the parties' respective contributions (s 79(3)(b)(i) and s 79(4)) and their current and future circumstances (s 79(3)(b)(ii) and s 79(5)).
3. In relation to the consideration of contributions, the Act sets out that the following is to be taking into account so far as they are relevant (s 79(4)):

(4) ...

(a) the financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last‑mentioned property, whether or not that last‑mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them;

(b) the contribution (other than a financial contribution) made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last‑mentioned property, whether or not that last‑mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them;

(c) the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or parent;

(ca) the effect of any family violence, to which one party to the marriage has subjected or exposed the other party, on the ability of a party to the marriage to make the kind of contributions referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c);

(d) the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party to the marriage;

(f) any other order made under this Act affecting a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage;

(g) any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided for a child of the marriage.

Section 79(3)(a) - The existing legal and equitable rights and interests in any property of the parties to the marriage or either of them and the existing liabilities of the parties to the marriage or either of them

1. There were various disputed items on each of the balance sheets initially provided by the parties. To their credit, at the conclusion of the hearing the parties were able to resolve much of the dispute as to the asset pool and the Court was provided with the following balance sheet:

Bike, Drone, Paining gear, guitars, trailer and tools

TOTAL (assets excluding item 7 - liabilities + superannuation)

Item 7 - Value of the artworks produced by the husband

1. Item 7 relates to artwork produced by the husband. The wife submits that the husband has largely failed to disclose any income he derives from his artwork. She contends the following:[1]

(a) On 23 May 2023, the websites for K Company and L Company advertised the husband's artwork totalling $51,900. Further, the K Company had marked three artworks as sold for $12,300 but with no sales date listed;

(b) the wife observed the husband removing about 35-40 artwork pieces from the former matrimonial home when he vacated on 9 May 2023;

(c) based on currently sales, the wife estimates these pieces to be valued at $2,000-$6,000 per painting and seeks an inference to this effect; and

(d) on 23 January 2024, the wife could see that the husband had made a further $15,0000 in art sales during the 2024 calendar year although the websites have since taken the artwork down

1. The husband disputes this. He submits that the wife has double-counted these amounts as he lists his artwork on both websites and has disclosed all artwork sales through invoices and in tax returns.[2] He also denies that he took 35-40 artworks when vacating the former matrimonial home, stating that he removed about eight artworks which are in his brother's shed.[3]
2. As to the sale of his artwork, the husband contends in the past two years he has only completed four artworks, with one being sold which resulted in him receiving $500. He also notes that the figures the wife refers to does not include the commission fees paid to the gallery.[4] He states that as he was unable to access the remainder of the artwork in the former matrimonial home, L Company no longer represent him.[5] He further asserted that he has significantly reduced his production of art given the stress of these proceedings.
3. Generally, the husband submits that there is little evidence regarding the artwork and that the Court cannot with confidence place any value on it.
4. The husband's tax returns in 2022/2023, 2023/2024 and 2024/2025, show the husband's taxable income as being $127,177, $127,104 and $132,619 respectively.[6] In each of those years, the bulk of that income has been from his salary as an educator (around $126,000). In respect to his artwork/business, that has either been shown as recording a loss or providing modest income.
5. Subpoena material produced from K Company shows that the husband sent the following correspondence to K Company:[7]

...

As far as artwork is concerned I am still finding myself in a very difficult position as anything that I make/ sold or have in galleries is being held against me for financial settlement and trying to be taken off the house settlement. This includes going through the studio and websites adding up numbers that are extremely inflated. Her last estimate was that I have $200,000 in works and wants that deducted from the my proceeds. So I am not posting any works on Instagram or selling. It's a ridiculous situation to be in and I can't find a way around it until I can get a settlement that is consistently being put off to keep me paying for the house she is living in, almost 18 months now.

That being said (maybe to much information) I have a few large works completed or in the process. Attached is one that I recently completed and have put into the see if I can get it into the [art prize] you might be interested in. I am working on a few in a different aesthetic but think I'll do an accompanying work for this one. If it does not get into the prize or after the show if you like it I would love for you to have it.

...

1. Further correspondence in March 2024 consists of the director informing the husband that a client accepted a discounted offer of $8,500 for two paintings and that she was "so pleased to finally sell them for you". She then asked about getting further paintings from the husband who advised that he would start work on new projects in the upcoming holidays.[8]
2. There was also correspondence subpoenaed from L Company on 1 February 2025 which informed the husband that the company would no longer be advertising his artwork.[9]

1. There is limited evidence regarding the value of art works that the husband retains or the value of his art practice. Without devaluing his talents as an artist, the wife produced no substantial evidence of his standing as an artist in the marketplace and did not point with specificity to evidence that the husband had failed to disclose. I do not accept that the husband's retained artworks are to the value ascribed by the wife. The advertised price is not necessarily indicative of the value of the works to the husband and common experience reveals that in many art exhibitions works will be marked with high prices that are unsold. It depends on the artist and the market and there is no independent evidence to establish the contentions of the wife as to the value of works held by the husband.
2. Otherwise, it is understandable that the husband cannot meet the costs of studio space, pay for materials and framing and produce artwork in circumstances where he is in the midst of heavily contested family law proceedings. The previous history of sales does not suggest that there will be a substantial financial resource available to the husband at the conclusion of these proceedings by way of his artwork. Having seen the husband give evidence on the subject, I do not accept that he has reduced his output as an artist for the purposes of these proceedings, and I accept the value which he ascribes to the art works. There is no valuation evidence in relation to this asset which is unsurprising given the cost of obtaining same.

1. With regards to the above, I therefore find the balance sheet to be comprised of:

Bike, Drone, Paining gear, guitars, trailer and tools

1. As noted above, the husband sought that superannuation be placed in a separated pool. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, the contributions of the parties, including that a significant portion of the husband's superannuation interest was accumulated during the marriage, and the composition of the pool, I decline to do so. I find that the justice and equity of this case makes it appropriate for the superannuation to not be included in a separate pool.

Section 79(2) - Is It Just and Equitable to Make an Order?

1. Both parties agree that by reason of their separation and the need to deal with jointly owned property, it is just and equitable to make orders. I find, given all the circumstances, that this is so.

Sections 79(3)(b)(i) and 79(4) - Contributions

1. The husband made the greater financial contributions, particularly initially as a result of the properties he owned with his brother. These properties were sold and were applied to, amongst other things, towards the purchase of the matrimonial home. The husband gives evidence that he contributed about $200,000 towards the purchase and construction of the matrimonial home. The husband has also generated a greater income throughout the marriage, including superannuation, and has continued to do so post-separation.
2. The wife, however, has made substantial contributions as the primary (albeit not exclusively) carer of the children. These non-financial contributions of the wife are significant given the diagnoses and needs of the children as noted above. The wife has also made the greater contributions in this regard post-separation.
3. The orders as proposed by each of the parties do not have any significant effect upon the earning capacity of either party.
4. As to child support payments, the orders of 1 February 2024 which provide for the husband to pay the wife $1,000 per week by way of spousal maintenance, also contain at Order 4, that the parties undertake not to apply for a child support assessment whilst that order is operative.

1. The wife made various assertions as to family violence perpetrated onto her and the children during the marriage by the husband. The wife gave evidence that throughout the marriage the husband was controlling and physically and verbally abusive. In her affidavit evidence, she recounts the following incidents, although not limited to, of family violence:

(a) in about September 2009, the husband had been drinking and became aggressive during a poker game with the wife and continued to abuse the wife once they came home, including calling her a "fucking bitch" and pushing her into the ground which caused her to hit the back of her head on a small hallway table;

(b) the husband did not allow her to go on maternity leave early when pregnant;

(c) in about March 2012, the husband shoved her to the ground causing the wife to sleep in the car that night with one of the children;

(d) in about 2013, the husband hit her in the stomach when pregnant;

(e) the husband denied her access to the family finances; and

(f) on about 25 October 2021, after a parent teacher meeting, the husband verbally abused the wife before grabbing her wrists tightly;

1. It is the wife's evidence that, at times, she felt fearful for her life and had physical symptoms.[10] In May 2023, there was an interim IVO made against the husband for the wife and children's protection.[11] The wife says that when the husband was served with the interim IVO he became verbally abusive. She gave a statement regarding this to the police in May 2023.[12]
2. The wife tendered two reports she made to the police in December 2024 and January 2025. The first is a general recount of her experience as deposed to above whilst the second was the wife alleging that the husband breached the IVO by calling her once and by sending a parcel to a post office which contained gifts for the children.[13] The husband has since been provided with charge sheets and released pending a court appearance in relation to sending the parcel and two missed calls to the wife he made. One of these calls was when the wife attempted to facilitate phone contact between the husband and the children, but he missed the call and then attempted to return the call. The wife accepted during oral evidence that the return call by the husband was within about 30 minutes.
3. There were also medical records tendered from 2013 which record that the wife presented to the hospital after she said the husband pushed her in the stomach.[14] It was submitted by counsel for the wife that undeniably there was an incident of family violence in 2013 as deposed to and the question for the Court was whether it was ongoing. Counsel for the wife urged the Court to make a finding that there was an element of control and serious family violence which can be inferred from affidavit material, her presentation in court and evidence under cross-examination. Conversely, counsel for the husband contends that there is a lack of evidence before the Court where there are limited police records, no department involvement and no findings of fact in other courts. Further, counsel for the husband contended that that even if a finding of family violence were made, this could not inform the Court's assessment of contributions where there is no evidence of a direct impact of family violence. Instead, it was submitted that the difficulties the wife encountered during the relationship arose from her health and the children.
4. The physical altercation involved, on the wife's account, the husband pushing her and, on the husband's account, mutual pushing and shoving occurred. Those are serious allegations, however, I am unable to determine what occurred but accept that there was a physical altercation. I accept that there were arguments involving the parties. I do not find, however, on the evidence, that those matters enable me to make a finding that there was an impact on the wife's contributions by reason of the conduct of the husband. I get the impression that this was a mutually unhappy marriage for some time.

1. Having regard to all the factors above, I assess the contributions of each of the parties to be 50 per cent.

Sections 79(3)(b)(ii) and 79(5) - Current and Future Circumstances

1. The wife submits that she suffers from chronic vestibula migraines and PTSD. Medical evidence was not tendered to support those contentions and although a letter from a psychologist who has been seeing the wife since August 2023, and which refers to the wife having PTSD symptoms, was annexed to her trial affidavit, it was not tendered into evidence. I accept that the wife has been seeing a psychologist and receives assistance from that person. In light of my findings above as to family violence, it does not substantially affect my finding as to current and future circumstances. It was conceded during closing submissions that the wife does have some capacity to work.
2. The husband has an income as an educator in the sum of about $126,000 per annum and his income as an artist, which I have found above to not be of any substantial significance. The wife's most recent Financial Statement deposed to her having an average weekly income of $2,070, albeit with $1,000 deriving from the order for spousal maintenance.
3. The husband has an ongoing capacity for work and may recommence his practice as an artist, but, again, I do not anticipate that this will produce an income of any substance such as it would significantly impact on my assessment. I do not accept the assertion that husband has, in effect decreased the financial resource available to the parties as a result of ceasing his art practice, or, alternatively, hiding art which may form part of the assets.
4. The wife is a beneficiary of a discretionary trust settled on 1 September 1997 by her father. The trust statement describes the wife as one of four capital beneficiaries all of whom are children of the settlor. As at 31 March 2024, the net assets of the trust were NZD1,389,680. Correspondence from the trust manager dated 4 June 2024 states amongst other things that the wife:[15]

(a) only has an entitlement to be considered from time to time for distributions from the trust;

(b) if a request is made by a beneficiary for financial aid/distribution, that request must be in writing and supported by an invoice, quote or statement; and

(c) the wife had received payments between August 2022 and July 2023 to cover expenses such school fees, rates, car repairs, student loans and legal costs in the sum of NZD72,645.65.

1. Further correspondence from the trustee to the wife dated 8 September 2025[16] informs the wife that another of the capital beneficiaries had requested a distribution from the trust in the sum of NZD250,000 in order to fund a wedding, honeymoon and a purchase of a house. The letter goes on to state:

Due to the significant value of the distribution request from [Mr M] and the Trust now being in a position to consider all requests, the Trustees have decided to make an interim distribution to all four capital beneficiaries. The trustees consider than an interim distribution now would fairly address all capital beneficiary needs, and that the amount of interim distribution should equalise each capital beneficiaries' total distribution to NZW $330,000 to date.

1. The correspondence provides that the wife had received distributions to date in the sum of NZD77,655.75 and they sought her consent to a proposed distribution to the wife in the sum of NZD252,578.05 which would equalise payments to each of the capital beneficiaries in the sum of NZD330,000. It is not clear as to whether the wife consented to that distribution although her oral evidence was that she would be accepting the offer, however, whilst the payment has not been made, at the date of the final hearing, there is clearly a capacity to receive that payment in the sum of NZD252,344.25 and it is a significant financial resource available to the wife. Even if, for whatever reason, that interim distribution does not materialise, it is clear from the evidence that it is still a significant financial resource available to the wife where it has provided her NZD77,655.75 over the past several years.
2. By reason of the final parenting orders made by consent, the wife has the substantial care of the children. She will, however, have supports available to her given that the orders permitted her to relocate to New Zealand. It was her evidence that she has a large support network in New Zealand and that government services for autism and ADHD are better as opposed to Australia. The wife gave evidence of her contact with these services in anticipation of her relocation. She further stated that she has accommodation available to her in New Zealand which will be, at least for the short-term, rent free and the use of a motor vehicle. Notwithstanding, I accept that the primary care of the children will be significant.
3. With the interim order also being discharged in relation to spousal maintenance, it is anticipated by the husband that the wife will seek an assessment for child support. The husband gave evidence that he will also attempt to seek housing once these proceedings are finalised where he is currently residing with his parents.
4. The final parenting orders also make provision for the husband to spend time with the children which require him to solely meet the costs of travel between Australia and New Zealand for himself and the children.

Assessment as to Current and Future Circumstances

1. Having regard to all of the circumstances referred to above, I do not propose to make any adjustment for current and future circumstances. Whilst the wife will have the primary care of the children and a lesser income in comparison to the husband, her circumstances will improve following her relocation to New Zealand with the associated supports available to her and by reason of the distribution she is likely to receive from the trust. She will also receive proceeds from the sale of the Town C property and has the trust as a significant financial resource. While the husband does not have the benefit of the wife's financial resource and will have to meet the costs of travel to spend time with the children, he will also receive proceeds from the sale of the Town C property and will retain a relatively strong income into the future.

CONCLUSION AS TO S 79

1. I find it just and equitable that there be a division of the assets, which takes into account the parties superannuation, of 50 per cent. The wife sought an equalisation of the parties' superannuation. For all the reasons above, including that her capacity to contribute in the future will likely be less than the husband's, I find such an order just and equitable. I will order accordingly.
2. This means that based on the balance sheet as found by the Court, the parties will each receive $572,515.
3. To reach this, the wife will receive half of the proceeds of sale of the Town C property ($357,850), this is in addition to half of the value of the household contents ($12,625) and her motor vehicle, the funds she has in a bank account and her H Pty Ltd currency which total $5,487. She then will have the benefit of an equalisation of the parties' superannuation interests ($184,151.5). This leaves her with $560,113.5.
4. The husband will also receive half of the proceeds of sale of the Town C property ($357,850) in addition to half of the value of the household contents ($12,625). He also has the benefit of his motor vehicle ($40,000), his art ($7,400), chattels ($250) and other various possessions ($2,000). He will have superannuation interest in the sum of $184,151.5. This leaves the husband with $604,276.50, however, he has liabilities pertaining to his motor vehicle and J Pty Ltd totalling $19,360 leaving him with $584,916.5. This will require the husband to make a payment to the wife in the sum of $12,401.5 to achieve an adjustment of 50 per cent.

1. The wife also makes an application for spousal maintenance. It appeared, by way of her Outline of Case, the wife sought, initially, $1,000 per week as a lump sum equivalent to two years. Counsel for the wife clarified during closing submissions, that she seeks spousal maintenance until the Town C property was sold but that the evidence does not necessarily support that the husband could pay $1,000 per week. Counsel for the husband contended that it should be partial property settlement if ordered, although the husband would not be able to afford such when the wife relocates to New Zealand.
2. Section 72 of the Act provides that a party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party, to the extent that the first-mentioned party is reasonable able to do so, if, and only if, the that other party is unable to support herself or himself adequately whether:

(a) by reason of having the care of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years; or

(b) by reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment; or

(c) for any other adequate reason;

having regard to any relevant matter referred to in subsection 75(2).

1. Section 75 of the Act provides that the matters to be taken into account when the Court exercises such jurisdiction are, amongst other things:

(a) the effect of family violence to which one party has subjected or exposed the other party;

(b) age and state of health of each of the parties;

(c) income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment;

(d) the extent to which either party has the care of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years, including the need of either party to provide appropriate housing for such a child;

(e) commitments of each of the parties that are necessary to enable the party to support:

(i) himself or herself; and

(ii) a child or another person that the party has a duty to maintain; and

(f) the terms of any order made or proposed to be made under section 79 in relation to the property of the parties; and

(g) any other fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.

1. The wife bears the onus of establishing that she is unable to support herself adequately and no order for spousal maintenance ought to be made if the wife cannot establish an inability to support herself.
2. I am not persuaded that the wife will be unable to support herself. Until these orders are pronounced, the husband is still mandated to pay the wife $1,000 per week pursuant to interim orders. On the evidence before the Court, the Town C property will be sold imminently, with evidence given that it will be ready for sale in December and the husband will be meeting the mortgage repayments until it is sold by reason of these orders. Further, the wife will shortly relocate to New Zealand where she will have the significant supports as canvassed above, including housing. She will also very likely have the benefit of a distribution from the trust as noted above. This represents a significant figure, and I do not accept submissions from the wife's counsel that such distribution will be delayed by reason of the wife having to establish herself in New Zealand, including a bank account. This will be of minor delay, if not already resolved.
3. The application for spousal maintenance will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McNab.

[1] Affidavit of Ms Arroyo filed 4 March 2025 'Wife's affidavit' at paragraph 217.

[2] Affidavit of Mr Arroyo filed 13 March 2025 'Husband's reply affidavit' at paragraph 121.

[3] Husband's reply affidavit at paragraph 122.

[4] Husband's reply affidavit at paragraph 123.

[5] Husband's reply affidavit at paragraph 124.