FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY - MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDING - Property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Where the husband's parents both personally and by way of corporations they control have made significant advances of funds to the husband prior to, during the course of, and subsequent to, the parties marriage - Where the husband contends an advance in 2001 and a series of advances from 2015 to 2020 were by way of loan agreements, being liabilities in the balance sheet identifying the property of the parties - Where the wife contends that the evidence does not establish loan agreements in the terms contended by the husband, or in the alternative that recovery of the 2001 advance is statute-barred, or in the further alternative that it is not likely that either advance will be called upon to be repaid (Biltoft and Biltoft [1995] FamCAFC 45; (1995) FLC 92-614) - Where the husband's initial financial contributions and the financial support provided by his parents during the marriage attracts significant weight when consideration is given to the use made of those contributions (Pierce v Pierce

Biltoft and Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614; [1995] FamCA 45

Bircher & Bircher and Anor (2016) FLC 93-721; [2016] FamCAFC 123

CGM Investments v Chelliah (2003) 196 ALR 548; [2003] FCA 79

Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; [1990] HCA 39

Dajani & Dajani [2025] FedCFamC1A 28

Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420; [1956] HCA 53

Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490; [2016] HCA 23

Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25

Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757; [1997] FamCA 27

Kowaliw and Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092; [1981] FamCA 70

Martell & Martell (2023) 66 Fam LR 650; [2023] FedCFamC1A 71

Noetel and Quealey (2005) FLC 93-230; [2005] FamCA 677

Nominal Defendant v Saleh [2011] NSWCA 16

Ogilvie v Adams [1981] VicRp 92; (1981) VR 1041

Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 505

Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844; [1998] FamCA 74

Poricanin v Australian Consolidated Industries Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 419

Rosati & Rosati (1998) FLC 92-804; [1998] FamCA 38

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52

Vadisanis & Vadisanis and Anor (2014) FLC 93-593; [2014] FamCAFC 97

Young v Queensland Trustees Limited (1956) 99 CLR 560; [1956] HCA 51

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

1. The husband and wife in their capacities as directors of B6 Pty Ltd (NSW) ACN ... ("B6 Pty Ltd") as trustee of the Mr Sartre and Ms Henschel Family Trust ("the Family Trust") shall do all acts and things and sign all documents required:

(a) Within 14 days of the date of these orders to transfer to the wife the plant, equipment, livestock, and silage recorded in the accounts of the Family Trust at 30 June 2024; and

(b) Within three (3) months of the date of these orders to transfer to the wife the title and interest in the property at N Property, Town O being that contained in folio identifier Lot ... ("the N Property") at a value of $8.5 million and the wife shall thereafter indemnify and keep indemnified the husband in relation to all liabilities in respect of the N Property.

1. Pending compliance with Orders 1(a) and 1(b), the wife have exclusive occupancy as against the husband of the N Property and the wife shall be solely entitled to conduct the day-to-day farming activities in the ordinary course of business of the Family Trust, including in respect of the management of livestock at the N Property.
2. Provided compliance has occurred as to Order 1(a), then simultaneously upon the compliance with Order 1(b):

(a) The wife shall sign all documents as prepared by the husband at his expense provided to the wife to:

(i) Relinquish any prior nominations made by the wife in respect of the Family Trust, with the husband to prepare such documents at his own expense and provide to the wife;

(ii) Forgo any right or claim she may have, whether actual, contingent, or otherwise in respect of the Family Trust, including without limitation any right or expectation as a beneficiary, with the husband to prepare such documents at his own expense and provide them to the wife;

(iii) Assign to the husband the whole of the wife's loan account held to her credit in the accounts of the Family Trust, identified as having a balance of $1,208,266 at 30 June 2024 or unpaid present entitlements owed to her or to any of the wife's entities by or in respect of the Family Trust, with the husband to prepare such documents at his own expense and provide them to the wife such that the wife and the wife's entities will have no right, title, or interest in, or be owed money, by B6 Pty Ltd as trustee for the Family Trust and there will be no payment and/or consideration due to the wife in respect of the same save as provided for in these Orders;

(b) The husband shall do all things necessary at his expense in his capacity as the appointer of the Family Trust to cause B6 Pty Ltd to be removed as trustee of the Family Trust and to appoint a new trustee of the Family Trust, being a corporate trustee of which he is the sole director and shareholder.

And as between the parties the husband shall thereafter be solely entitled to interests in relation to the Family Trust and B6 Pty Ltd in its capacity as trustee of the Family Trust (including its shareholding in B2 Pty Ltd (ACN: 115 033 997)).

1. The husband's superannuation interests with the Superannuation Fund 1 ("the Superannuation Fund 1") shall be split to create a superannuation interest for the wife as follows:

(a) Pursuant to s 90XT(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and reg 27 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth) the Court determines the amount in relation to the husband's superannuation in the Superannuation Fund 1 is $2,090,282.

(b) Pursuant to s 90XT(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Court allocates a base amount to the wife in respect of the husband's superannuation interests in the Superannuation Fund 1 of $817,887.

(c) Pursuant to s 90XT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the husband's superannuation in the Superannuation Fund 1 the wife is entitled to be paid an amount calculated in accordance with the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth) where the base amount is $817,887 and there is a corresponding reduction in the entitlement of the husband at the time of the splittable payment.

(d) The operative time for the payment under this order is 10 business days after service of this order on the trustee of the Superannuation Fund 1.

(e) The trustee of the Superannuation Fund 1 shall do all such acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary, in accordance with the obligations set out under the Family Law Act (Cth) and the (Cth) to calculate the entitlement to make payment to the wife in accordance with these orders.

1. Having been accorded procedural fairness in relation to the making of these orders, these orders bind the trustee of the Superannuation Fund 1.
2. Within 21 days from the date of these orders the parties, both in their capacities as officeholders of B6 Pty Ltd and in their personal capacities, shall do all such things as are necessary to instruct the accountant of the Superannuation Fund 1 to prepare, at the cost of the SMSF, special purpose accounts of the Superannuation Fund 1 to record the implementation of the superannuation splitting orders, including providing the accountant with a sealed copy of these orders, and if requested by the accountant, a copy of the reasons for judgment, and to do all things and provide all documents as requested by the accountant to implement the superannuation split pursuant to Order 5.
3. The parties forthwith do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary, including in their capacity as the directors of B6 Pty Ltd, to cause B6 Pty Ltd in its capacity as trustee of the Superannuation Fund 1 to sell the property at Lots 1 & 2 AL Street, Town O ("the AA Property") being the whole of the land contained in folio identifier Lot ... and Lot ...:

(a) With a real estate agent as agreed upon by the husband and wife in writing within 21 days of the date of these orders to conduct the sale, and in the event of a failure to so agree in writing, they shall within a further seven (7) days write a joint letter to the President of the Real Estate Institute of NSW requesting the President nominate an agent to act on the sale and shall forthwith act on that nomination;

(b) With a solicitor as agreed upon in writing within 21 days of the date of these orders, but failing agreement, shall within a further seven (7) days write a joint letter to the President of the Law Society of NSW requesting the President nominate a solicitor to conduct the sale and shall forthwith act on that nomination;

(c) By either expressions of interest or private treaty sale, and in the event of dispute as to either method of sale, as recommended in the writing by the agreed or appointed real estate agent, at an asking price of as agreed in writing between the parties but failing agreement for more than seven (7) days at $2.525 million;

(d) In the event that the AA Property is not sold by expressions of interest or private treaty sale within six (6) weeks the parties shall take all steps to sell the property by public auction;

(e) The first auction shall take place within two (2) months thereafter at a reserve price of $2.25 million;

(f) The second auction shall be at a reserve price of $2 million and shall take place within a further two (2) months; and

(g) The third auction shall be at a reserve price of $1.9 million and shall take place within a further two (2) months.

1. On settlement of the sale of the AA Property the parties shall take all steps to cause B6 Pty Ltd to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:

(a) In payment of any outstanding costs and expenses of the sale, including legal costs and disbursements, agents commission, advertising expenses, auction expenses and any adjustments due to the purchaser;

(b) In payment of any fees for the nomination of the real estate agent or solicitor;

(c) In payment of any CGT or taxation impost incurred by the Superannuation Fund 1 on the sale; and

(d) To pay the balance remaining into the bank account of the Superannuation Fund 1.

1. Within three (3) months of the date of these orders, or within 28 days after the settlement of the sale of the AA Property pursuant to these orders, whichever shall last occur:

(a) Each of the husband and the wife shall nominate to B6 Pty Ltd a complying superannuation fund into which their respective member interests can be rolled and shall within seven (7) days thereafter do all things necessary to pay into such complying superannuation fund their respective member balances in the Superannuation Fund 1 and shall thereupon do all things necessary to resign as members of the Superannuation Fund 1; and shall then

(b) Forthwith do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to cause the husband to resign as director of B6 Pty Ltd, for the husband to transfer to the wife his one ORD class share in B6 Pty Ltd and assign to the wife or as she may direct all interest and entitlement as the husband has or may have in relation to B6 Pty Ltd; and

(c) Upon completion of that process, do all such things as are necessary to cause the Superannuation Fund 1 to vest and to deregister the Superannuation Fund 1.

1. Within three months of the date of these orders the husband shall:

(a) Pay to the wife by way of cleared electronic funds transfer into the trust account of Karras Partners Lawyers $3,725,099 ("the cash adjusting sum");

(b) Pay all monies and otherwise do all acts and things necessary and sign all documents required to discharge mortgage dealing number ... in favour of ANZ Bank secured on the Suburb W property being the whole of the land contained in folio identifier ..., and otherwise indemnify and save harmless the wife in relation to all monies outstanding pursuant thereto; and

(c) Indemnify and save harmless the wife in relation to all outgoings payable in respect of the Suburb W property.

1. Contemporaneously with the husband's compliance with Order 10, the wife shall do all acts and things necessary to:

(a) Transfer to the husband at his expense the whole of her right, title, and interest in the Suburb W property;

(b) At her expense cause to be removed from the title of the Suburb W property:

(i) The Caveat in favour of WW Lawyers, being registered as dealing number ...;

(ii) The Caveat in favour of XX Pty Ltd, being registered as dealing number ...;

(iii) The Caveat in favour of Ms YY, being registered as dealing number ...; and

(c) Sign such Discharge Authority as may be required by ANZ Bank as mortgagee to discharge mortgage dealing number ....

1. In the event the husband fails or neglects to comply with Order 10 then forthwith upon such failure or neglect the husband and the wife shall do all acts and things and execute all documents necessary to list the Suburb W property for sale by auction as follows:

(a) With a real estate agent as agreed upon by the husband and wife in writing within 21 days of the date of default to conduct the sale, and in the event of a failure to so agree in writing, they shall within a further seven (7) days write a joint letter to the President of the Real Estate Institute of NSW requesting the President nominate an agent to act on the sale and shall forthwith act on that nomination;

(b) With a solicitor as agreed upon in writing within 21 days of the date of default, but failing agreement, shall within a further seven (7) days write a joint letter to the President of the Law Society of NSW requesting the President nominate a solicitor to conduct the sale and shall forthwith act on that nomination;

(c) Such auction to occur within six (6) weeks of the property being listed for sale by the agent, with the reserve price to be as agreed in writing between the parties, and failing agreement at least seven (7) days prior to the auction, at the sum of $14,500,000;

(d) If the Suburb W property remains unsold for a period of one (1) week following the auction, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to list the property for sale by private treaty for a four (4) week period thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing to re-list the property for auction;

(e) If the Suburb W property remains unsold after the foregoing private treaty period, it shall be listed for sale via public auction again, with such auction to occur within a further four (4) week period, with the reserve price to be as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement $13,775,000;

(f) The husband and the wife shall cooperate in every way with the agent and solicitor, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(i) Making the key and alarm codes (if any) available to the agent;

(ii) Signing all documents requested by the agent to sell the Suburb W property;

(iii) Executing a contract for sale in the form prepared by the solicitors having the contract of sale at the sale price;

(iv) Allowing inspection of the Suburb W property at all times as requested by the agent;

(v) Ensuring the Suburb W property presents in a neat and clean condition at the time of inspection by the agent and any prospective purchaser, with the costs of same to be met by the husband; and

1. On settlement of the sale of the Suburb W property the parties shall take all steps to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:

(a) Any outstanding costs and agreed expenses of the sale including legal costs and disbursements, agents commission, advertising expenses, auction expenses and any adjustments due to the purchaser, and in reimbursement to the husband of such agreed costs of sale as have been paid by him;

(b) Payment of any and all monies due and owing to the mortgagee, ANZ Bank in respect of the mortgage secured over the Suburb W property being referable only to loan account number ...32;

(c) In payment of 32.2 per cent of the balance then remaining to the wife;

(d) In payment to the ANZ Bank of such amount outstanding pursuant to loan account number ...56; and

(e) In payment of the balance to the husband.

1. Pending compliance with Order 10 or completion of the sale of the Suburb W property, the husband shall meet as and when the same fall due, all costs and expenses relating to the Suburb W property, including but not limited to all mortgage repayments, statutory charges, rates, and outgoings and shall indemnify the wife in relation to same.
2. The wife shall grant access to the husband to remove all items located at the N Property which belong to B Pty Ltd, B2 Pty Ltd, B3 Pty Ltd, B4 Pty Ltd, B5 Pty Ltd and B7 Pty Ltd, such access to be on the following terms:

(a) The removal of items shall be undertaken in the period commencing 14 days after these orders and ending 56 days after these orders;

(b) The husband shall at no time enter or attempt to enter the N Property and he is restrained accordingly;

(c) The husband shall provide the wife with no less than 48 hours' notice of his intention to attend the N Property on each occasion;

(d) The husband shall undertake the removal of the items in a workman-like manner and shall not damage the property and improvements located upon the N Property; and

(e) The husband shall be at liberty to appoint delegates, contractors and agents to attend the N Property on this behalf within the terms of this order.

1. Each of the husband and the wife be equally responsible for, so as to pay 50 per cent of, any taxation liability or obligation, including any penalties or interest accruing thereon, arising from the operations of, or the revenue reporting failures or omissions of, the Family Trust or B6 Pty Ltd from 30 June 2005 up until the date of these orders.
2. The parties shall within 14 days do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to close ANZ Bank joint bank account number ...73 and distribute the balance equally between them.
3. In the event either party fails or neglects to execute any document pursuant to these orders, then within seven (7) days of such failure or neglect, the Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), Sydney Registry be appointed pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), to execute such document on the part of the defaulting a party, upon the satisfaction of such failure or neglect by way of affidavit evidence.
4. Except as provided for by these orders, save as to costs, including orders as to contribution to the costs of ch 7 single expert evidence, all outstanding Applications and Responses thereto are dismissed.
5. Should a party make an application for costs of or incidental to these proceedings, 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 that event, orders will be made in chambers as to the filing of any Response to the Application in a Proceeding for costs and affidavit in support thereof, together with outlines and written submissions, with the costs application to be listed on a date to be fixed.
6. In the event that neither party files an Application in a Proceeding pursuant to Order 20, any outstanding application for costs is 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 the pseudonym Henschel & Sartre has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. By way of an Initiating Application filed on 2 September 2020, Ms Henschel ("the wife") commenced proceedings in what was then the Family Court of Australia seeking orders as to the adjustment of property between she and Mr Sartre ("the husband") pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). By way of a Response to an Initiating Application filed on 29 October 2020, the husband sought different orders as to the adjustment of property.
2. The wife was born in 1972 and is currently 52 years old. The husband was born in 1964 and is currently 60 years old. They married in 2003 and separated on 20 April 2020. An order for divorce was made in early 2023.
3. There is one child of the marriage, X, who was born in 2009 and is currently 16 years old. On 23 May 2024, after a seven day trial, judgment was delivered and orders were made regulating his parenting and providing for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility, for X to live with the mother and to spend time with the father on each alternate Tuesday night and alternate weekend during the school term and for half of the school holidays until 30 June 2025, after which date X shall live and spend time with each of the parties in accordance with his wishes. Child Support departure orders were made for the husband to pay to the wife $218 each week until 30 June 2025, and for the husband to pay X's private school fees of RR School. X is in year 10. He will complete school in 2027.
4. The extreme conflict and unrelenting hostility between the parties over close to five years of litigation permeated many aspects of the property adjustment proceedings. It has compounded the complex interrelationship of items comprising their property interests. Those property interests span across a discretionary family trust that owns a large rural property, conducted agricultural enterprises, and which holds a majority shareholding in a corporation that owns a not insignificant recently reconstructed industrial property. A substantive trading enterprise, known as the B Group, of which the husband broadly holds a two thirds interest, operates from the industrial property.

(a) Whether a contended loan agreement made between the husband and his parents 18 months prior to the marriage in 2001 whereby he acquired his parent's beneficial half share in what was later the home of the parties at ZZ Street, Suburb W ("the ZZ Street property") is a liability in the balance sheet identifying the property of the parties;

(b) Whether contended loan funds advanced from an entity controlled by the husband's parents to the husband over the period from August 2015 to April 2020 is a liability in the balance sheet; and

(c) Whether the self-managed superannuation fund ("SMSF") interest of the husband ought to be split 100 per cent to the wife, or whether the interest of each party in their SMSF ought to be split to equalize their member entitlements. They agreed that the primary asset of their SMSF, another rural property, will be sold.

1. If the 2001 and 2015 to 2020 advances are not determined to be liabilities in the balance sheet, and are weighed as contributions made by or on behalf of the husband, the wife sought a contribution finding of 47.5 per cent in her favour and 52.5 per cent in favour of the husband, with a 2.5 per cent adjustment thereto in her favour pursuant to s 75(2) of the Act, such that the determined property of the parties would be adjusted equally. If the advances were not determined to be liabilities in the balance sheet, the husband sought a contribution finding of 60 per cent in his favour and 40 per cent in favour of the wife, with no adjustment pursuant to s 75(2).
2. In the alternative, if the 2001 and 2015 to 2020 advances were to be determined as liabilities in the balance sheet, the wife sought a contribution finding of equality, with a 2.5 per cent adjustment thereto pursuant to s 75(2) of the Act in her favour, such that she would receive 52.5 per cent of the property of the parties and the husband would receive 47.5 per cent. In that alternative circumstance, the husband sought a contribution finding of 59 per cent in his favour and 41 per cent in favour of the wife, with no adjustment pursuant to s 75(2).
3. For the reasons that follow the property of the parties is adjusted 54.5 per cent to the husband and 45.5 per cent to the wife. The specie of items of property are adjusted broadly in terms as sought by each party, except that their entitlements in their SMSF fund will be equalised. Differing orders are made from those sought by each party regulating the chronology and mechanics implementing the processes of the adjustment of their property.

1. In the 1960s BB Pty Ltd ("BB Pty Ltd") was incorporated. It is an entity controlled by the husband's parents. The husband and his siblings, Ms AB and Mr AC, each hold one of three 'A' class shares in the corporation. The husband is one of five directors, the others being his two siblings and his parents. The husband said that BB Pty Ltd has historically managed the wealth of his parents.
2. The husband's mother, the husband's father, and the husband's brother are the directors of CC Pty Ltd ("CC Pty Ltd"). It is the trustee of the Superannuation Fund 3, of which the husband was a member, described as his parents' superannuation fund. CC Pty Ltd also holds other assets in its own right. Of the 12,195 issued shares of the trustee, the husband holds one ordinary share, the husband's sister holds one Class B ordinary share, and the husband's mother holds 12,193 ordinary shares.
3. The husband said that he is the managing director of "his own business", known as B Pty Ltd, which is part of the B Group. The B Group currently comprises a series of corporations, being:

(a) B Pty Ltd;

(b) B3 Pty Ltd ("B3 Pty Ltd");

(c) B2 Pty Ltd ("B2 Pty Ltd");

(d) B7 Pty Ltd ("B7 Pty Ltd");

(e) B4 Pty Ltd ("B4 Pty Ltd"); and

(f) B5 Pty Ltd ("B5 Pty Ltd").

1. In or around 1987 to 1988 the husband acquired B7 Pty Ltd. He commenced his own construction business. In 1989 the husband met who he describes as his "business partner", Mr AD ("Mr AD"). In 1993 the husband or B7 Pty Ltd purchased an enterprise trading as AE Company. The husband and his mother each hold one ordinary share in B7 Pty Ltd, his mother holding her share beneficially for the husband. Mr AD holds one redeemable preference share. The directors of B7 Pty Ltd are Mr AD and the husband. At the time of the marriage B7 Pty Ltd conducted an enterprise trading as "B4 Pty Ltd".
2. In mid-2003, shortly after the marriage, the husband incorporated B Pty Ltd. He holds two of the three issued shares in the corporation. The other shareholder is Mr AD. The directors are the husband and Mr AD. B Pty Ltd manufactures, sells, delivers, and installs products as well as importing products.
3. In mid-2003 the husband incorporated B4 Pty Ltd. He holds two of the three issued shares in the corporation. The other shareholder is Mr AD. The directors are the husband and Mr AD. B4 Pty Ltd is a service entity that employs management and showroom staff for the B Group.
4. In mid-2005 the husband established the Mr Sartre Family Trust by way of deed. A deed of variation was made in early 2014, renaming it as the Mr Sartre & Ms Henschel Family Trust ("the Family Trust"). The husband holds the power to appoint and remove the trustee at his absolute discretion. The corporate trustee is B6 Pty Ltd("B6 Pty Ltd"). The husband was the sole director of the trustee until early 2014 when the wife was also appointed as a director. Both the husband and the wife are now directors and equal shareholders in the trustee. The trustee has an unfettered discretion to distribute the income and property of the Family Trust. The parties agree that the Family Trust is their property amenable to adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Act.
5. In mid-2005 the husband incorporated B2 Pty Ltd. The husband and Mr AD are its directors. The Family Trust holds 200 issued ordinary shares in B2 Pty Ltd by way of its trustee, B6 Pty Ltd. Mr AD holds 100 ordinary shares by way of a trustee corporation he controls, AH Pty Ltd ("AH Pty Ltd").
6. In early 2015 B2 Pty Ltd purchased a real property at H Street, Suburb J ("the Suburb J property") for $2.88 million funded by way of loans from the ANZ of $1.8 million, $400,000 from BB Pty Ltd pursuant to a secured loan agreement in writing entered on 15 January 2015, $400,000 from the husband, and $200,000 from Mr AD. Between 2016 and 2022 the factory premises at Suburb J were purpose reconstructed for the B Group's trading. The single real property expert, Mr LL, opined, and I find, that although some works are required to complete the reconstruction, the site is currently occupied and functioning, conducting the B Group's trading activities. I find that the outstanding works identified in the single quantity surveying expert's opinion pursuant to ch 7 of the (Cth) ("the Rules") (Exhibit 32) will need to be finished for the building to be "fully complete and compliant". It was valued by Mr LL at $16.55 million (Exhibit 31).

1. The wife was born in 1972 and is currently 52 years old. The husband was born in 1964 and is currently 60 years old.
2. In mid-1993 the husband and his parents purchased a property at ZZ Street, Suburb W ("the ZZ Street property"), for $765,000 plus stamp duty. The husband was the sole registered proprietor. His parents contributed $400,000 to the acquisition. The husband funded his "share" of the acquisition by way of bridging finance loan from the ANZ bank of $400,000 secured on a property he owned at AM Street, Suburb W. The bridging finance facility was discharged when the AM Street property was sold in late1993.
3. The husband and his parents proposed to redevelop a duplex residence upon the ZZ Street property. Local council regulations presented challenges presented to that objective. In 2001 the property was listed for sale. Soft market conditions led to discussions for the husband to acquire his parent's beneficial interest in the ZZ Street property. Issue exists as to the terms and characterisation of the facility made available by the husband's parents to the husband in 2001 acquiring their beneficial interest in the ZZ Street property, as determined later in these reasons.
4. Prior to 2001 the wife graduated. She was engaged as a consultant for AN Pty Ltd. In 2002 she commenced employment with the predecessor of B Pty Ltd as a consultant and was paid a yearly salary of $120,000. In or around 2003 or 2004 the wife obtained a degree.
5. In early 2002, in the year prior to the marriage, the wife purchased a property at Q Street, Suburb R ("the Suburb R property") for $500,000 funded by way a mortgage from AJ Bank in sum of $450,000.
6. Upon marriage the wife moved into the ZZ Street property. The parties resided there until 2018. The wife tenanted the Suburb R property.
7. Some months after the marriage in 2003, the husband entered a joint venture to purchase the AO Venue at AP Street, Sydney. To facilitate the purchase, he said borrowed $300,000 from the ANZ. The wife said the husband borrowed $350,000. I am unable to make a finding as to the sum borrowed. In late 2005 AO Venue entered administration. In his affidavit the husband said:

63. ...I did not receive any return from my interest in [AO Venue].

1. That evidence was incorrect. In cross-examination the husband conceded that $50,000 was recovered from the investment. The husband incurred $499,114 in legal fees in Federal Court proceedings claiming the balance of the invested funds. He was successful in that litigation. The losing party declared bankruptcy. No funds were recovered by way of the judgment.
2. At the commencement of the trial the wife asserted that the husband's conduct in the AO Venue venture, and specifically his pursuit of litigation to recover the investment, occasioned a waste in the sense identified in Kowaliw and Kowaliw [1981] FamCA 70; (1981) FLC 91-092. In her affidavit she said the husband asked her to review the proposed acquisition and that she undertook a due diligence analysis of the "financial affairs of the [business]". She said to the husband that she did not think the business was "a good investment", and that she did not trust one of the other partners in the venture. She also said the husband refused to compromise the litigation when the other party made an offer to settle at mediation of $300,000 and that he imprudently rejected to offer, contrary to legal advice he received at the time. She contended that the lawyer acting for the husband advised him to accept the offer, and that if he did not, he "could easily" end up with nothing. She said the husband was "highly focused" and instructed the lawyer that he "wanted to make a point". The parties subsequently litigated with the ATO as to the deductibility of the legal fees incurred. The wife was cross-examined on the transcript of her evidence in the Federal Court proceedings (Exhibits 37 and 38). Her oral evidence in the Federal Court proceedings was inconsistent with that contained in her trial affidavit in these proceedings. Her affidavit evidence when cast against Exhibits 37 and 38 was opportunistic. Her contentions of waste were abandoned by the conclusion of the trial.
3. In late 2003 the wife incorporated S Pty Ltd. The wife used the corporation as a vehicle to receive her personal exertion income by way of her consulting services.

(a) The sale proceeds of the Suburb R property;

(b) The sale proceeds of the Town AK property;

(c) The funds produced from the transfer of the AA Property by the Family Trust to Superannuation Fund 1 for the sum of $650,000. The sale proceeds of the AA Property of $295,573 were applied to discharge the ANZ AA Property mortgage and the balance applied to the purchase of the N Property;

(d) Savings of the husband; and

(e) Two loans secured by way of mortgage over the ZZ Street property in favour of the ANZ Bank, the first being account ...96 for $260,000, and the second being account ...56 for $952,000.

1. The N Property currently is more than 250 hectares. It has a substantial split level architecturally designed residence. The wife currently resides in the N Property.
2. In late 2013 the parties sold the 1 AG Street Property for $380,000 and applied the proceeds of sale to reduce the ANZ Bank loans secured by way of mortgage on the ZZ Street property.
3. From August 2015 to April 2020 the husband commenced to receive advances from BB Pty Ltd. In his affidavit the husband said that he commenced to receive advances from BB Pty Ltd from August 2015 to October 2020. That was incorrect. The advances were from August 2015 to April 2020, the last advance being shortly prior to the separation of the parties on 20 April 2020. It is uncontroversial that the total sum received over this period was $575,000. The issue as to whether these advances are a liability in the balance sheet is determined later in these reasons.
4. In January 2015 BB Pty Ltd and B2 Pty Ltd entered an executed Secured Loan Agreement for a facility of $400,000. In April 2018 BB Pty Ltd advanced a further $400,000 by way of loan to B2 Pty Ltd, recorded in an executed Heads of Agreement dated that day. The loan was repaid.
5. In mid-2018 B2 Pty Ltd purchased the ZZ Street property from the husband for $5 million. The wife contends that she was not informed of the details of the sale. The acquisition by B2 Pty Ltd was funded in part by way of a $400,000 loan advance from BB Pty Ltd recorded in an executed Heads of Agreement document dated April 2018.
6. In mid-2018 the parties jointly purchased a property at V Street, Suburb W ("the Suburb W property") for $9 million, sourced by way of $5 million from the sale of the ZZ Street property, a $3 million loan secured by way of mortgage over the property from the ANZ Bank, and the balance from savings. The property currently is subject to two loans secured by way of mortgage. One is the ANZ Bank Home Loan account ...932 in the joint names of the parties used to fund the acquisition of the N Property. The other is described by the wife as the ANZ Bank farm loan account ...56 in the husband's sole name.
7. The ANZ Bank ...56 loan as at 30 June 2024 was $579,239 (Expert Report of Ms T 6 March 2025, Appendix 12.2). It is a personal liability of the husband secured on the title of the Suburb W property. The value of that liability forms part of the valuation of the Family Trust. The husband's personal liability by way of the loan has been "booked" (that is, included) in the value of the husband's credit loan account with the Family Trust.

(a) In July 2022 $50,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(b) In October 2022 $25,000 from the husband's parents;

(c) In January 2023 $25,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(d) In April 2023 $25,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(e) In May 2023 $30,000 from the husband's parents;

(f) In July 2023 $25,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(g) In August 2023 $100,000 from the husband's parents;

(h) In September 2023 $350,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(i) In October 2023 $25,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(j) In December 2023 $25,000 from the husband's parents;

(k) In January 2024 $25,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(l) In February 2024 $220,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(m) In April 2024 $25,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(n) In Aril 2024 $20,000 from BB Pty Ltd;

(o) In June 2024 $50,000 from the husband's parents; and

(p) In August 2024 $25,000 from the husband's parents.

1. The husband's evidence was that $1,104,642 of these funds were applied to his legal costs, and the balance were applied to day to day living expenses.
2. In mid-2022 the wife attended upon the police as to historical sexual violence allegations she alleged were perpetrated against her by the husband. In late 2024 the police requested an interview with the husband as to these allegations. They were not pressed as part of the wife's contribution case in so far as it was anchored in the principles identified in Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27; (1997) FLC 92-757 ("Kennon").
3. On 20 September 2022 orders were made by consent providing for the husband and the wife to each sell specified shareholdings, and:
   1. That within 14 days of the sale of the Husband's Shares in accordance with Order 1 of these Orders or provision by the Wife of the documents referred to in Order 4 of these Orders, whichever is the later to occur, the Husband pay to the Wife, by way of partial property settlement, the sum of $X calculated in accordance with the following formula:

X = (A + B)/2 - B

Where:

A is the proceeds of sale of the Husband's shares B is the proceeds of sale of the Wife's shares

1. On 26 October 2022 the wife filed an enforcement application to enforce the orders made on 20 September 2022. Such application was dismissed on 8 November 2022. A further interim hearing was allocated for 8 December 2022. Judgment was delivered on 23 February 2023 and the husband was ordered to pay the wife a partial property settlement in the sum of $250,000.
2. In late 2022 the interim AVO and malicious damage charge against the husband was dismissed in the Local Court.
3. On 21 March 2023 the proceedings were listed for hearing before Justice Berman as to both parenting and property over eight to 10 days commencing on 4 December 2023.
4. In April 2023 BB Pty Ltd advanced $400,000 to B2 Pty Ltd.
5. In mid-2023 the wife registered Superannuation Fund 1 as an SMSF.
6. In mid-2023 an order for divorce was made.
7. On 5 July 2023 orders were made for the sale of livestock, agricultural product and equipment to facilitate the payment to the wife of the partial property settlement order made on 23 February 2023.
8. Between July and December 2023 issues arose between parties as to the husband's access to the N Property. Spotfire disputes again arose between the parties as to the husband's access to the N Property between July and December 2023. On 6 December 2023 orders were made regulating the husband's access to the property.
9. Between October 2023 to August 2024 the husband ceased receiving a salary from B Pty Ltd. His salary recommenced in late 2024.
10. On 4 December 2023 the final trial as to both property and parenting commenced before Justice Berman. After two days it was adjourned to 26 February 2024 on joint application as further valuation evidence needed to be obtained and other valuation evidence required updating.
11. In late 2023 the wife was appointed as Chair of P Company.
12. Between January 2024 and November 2024 multiple disputes again arose between the parties as to the husband's access to the N Property.
13. On 26 February 2024 the dispute as to the parenting of X, who was 15 years old at that time, and child support, was heard by Justice Berman over a further four days. The primary judge determined that the trial of the property adjustment could not proceed without risk of the proceedings being again adjourned. On 23 May 2024 judgment was delivered and orders made as to parenting and child support departure.

1. On the last day of the trial the wife amended her final relief sought by way of a minute of order containing (Exhibit 43). She seeks:

An Order altering the property interests of the parties in the following terms:-

1. That in respect of the Family Trust:-

1.1 the Husband and Wife as Directors of [B6 Pty Ltd] shall do all acts and things and sign all documents required within 14 days to transfer to the Wife the plant, equipment, livestock and [product] recording in the accounts of the Family Trust;

1.2 the Husband and Wife as Directors of [B6 Pty Ltd] shall do all acts and things and sign all documents required within three months to transfer the title and interest in [N Property] to the Wife at a value of $8.5 million;

1.3 the Wife shall thereafter indemnify and keep indemnified the Husband in relation to all liabilities in respect of [N Property];

1.4 the Husband shall within three months appoint a new trustee of the Family Trust, being a corporate trustee of which he is the sole director and shareholder;

1.5 the Wife shall assign to the Husband the whole of her loan account held to her credit in the accounts of the Family Trust, identified as having a balance of $1,208,266.00 as at 30 June 2024;

1.6 the Husband shall within three months or upon the settlement of the sale of [AA Property] (whichever shall last occur), do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to:-

1.6.1 resign as Director of [B6 Pty Ltd];

1.6.2 transfer his one ORD class share in [B6 Pty Ltd] to the Wife;

1.6.3 assign to the Wife or as she may direct all interest and entitlement as the Husband has or may have in relation to [B6 Pty Ltd];

1.7 subject to Order 15 and upon the husband's compliance with Order 1.6 hereof, the Wife shall indemnify the Husband in respect of any and all liability arising in respect of [B6 Pty Ltd];

1. That within three months the Husband shall pay to the Wife by way of cleared electronic funds transfer into the trust account of Karras Partners Lawyers the sum of $5,039,221.00 ("the capital sum").

2. The Husband and the Wife shall within three months and contemporaneously with the Husband's compliance with Order 2 hereof, do all acts and things necessary:-

3.1 In the case of the Wife, to transfer to the husband the whole of her right, title and interest in [Suburb W].

3.2 In the case of the Wife, to remove from the title of [Suburb W]:-

3.2.1 the Caveat in favour of [WW Lawyers], being registered as dealing number [...].

3.2.2 the Caveat in favour of [XX Pty Ltd], being registered as dealing number [...].

3.2.3 the Caveat in favour of [Ms YY], being registered as dealing number [...].

3.3 In the case of the Wife, to sign such Discharge Authority as may be required by ANZ Bank as mortgagee to discharge mortgage dealing number [...].

3.4 In the case of the Husband, to pay all monies and otherwise do all acts and things necessary and sign all documents required to discharge mortgage dealing number [...] in favour of ANZ Bank, and otherwise indemnify and save harmless the Wife in relation to all monies outstanding pursuant thereto.

3.5 In the case of the Husband, to indemnify and save harmless the Wife in relation to all outgoings payable in respect of [Suburb W].

1. In the event that the Husband should default in complying with his obligations pursuant to Orders 1, 2 and 3 hereof (or any part of them), and such default is not remedied by him within seven days of the due date, then the Husband and Wife shall do all acts and things and execute all documents necessary to list [Suburb W] for sale by auction as follows:

4.1 the parties shall within 10 days appoint a real estate agent as agreed between them ("the agent'), or failing agreement, [AU Real Estate, Suburb W];

4.2 the parties shall within 10 days appoint a solicitor as agreed between them ("the solicitor'), or failing agreement, [AV Lawyers, Suburb AW];

4.3 [Suburb W] shall be initially sold via public auction, with such auction to occur within six (6) weeks of the property being listed for sale by the agent, with the reserve price to be as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement at the sum of $14,500,000;

4.4 if [Suburb W] remains unsold for a period of one (1) week following the auction, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to list the property for sale via private treaty for a four (4) week period thereafter unless otherwise agreed to re-list the property for auction;

4.5 if [Suburb W] remains unsold after the foregoing private treaty period, it shall be listed for sale via public auction again, with such auction to occur within a further four (4) week period, with the reserve price to be as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement $13,775,000;

4.6 the Husband and Wife shall cooperate in every way with the agent and solicitor, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:-

4.6.1 making the key and alarm codes (if any) available to the agent;

4.6.2 signing all documents requested by the agent to sell [Suburb W];

4.6.3 executing a contract for sale in the form prepared by the solicitors having the contract of sale at the sale price;

4.6.4 allowing inspection of [Suburb W] at all times as requested by the agent;

4.6.5 ensuring [Suburb W] presents in a neat and clean condition at the time of inspection by the agent and any prospective purchaser, with the costs of same to be met by the Husband;

4.6.6 not doing or saying anything to hinder or prevent a sale being effected.

1. That on settlement of the sale of [Suburb W] the parties shall take all steps to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:-

5.1 Any outstanding costs and agreed expenses of the sale including legal costs and disbursements, agents commission, advertising expenses, auction expenses and any adjustments due to the purchaser, and in reimbursement to the husband of such agreed costs of sale as have been paid by him;

5.2 Payment of any and all monies due and owing to the mortgagee, ANZ Bank in respect of the mortgage secured over [Suburb W] being referable only to loan account number [...32];

5.3 In payment to the ANZ Bank of such amount outstanding pursuant to loan account number [...56];

5.4 In the event that the husband defaulted in the payment of the capital sum, or any part thereof, a payment to the Wife of such outstanding amount in respect of the capital sum;

5.5 In payment to the wife of 50% of the amount by which the gross sale price of [Suburb W] exceeds the sum of $14.5 million (if applicable);

5.6 The remaining balance shall be paid to the Husband.

1. In the event the Husband shall fail to join with the Wife in the sale of [Suburb W] pursuant to Order 4, and such failure continues for a period of seven days after the Wife has identified the husband's failure to take any specific step to progress the sale of [Suburb W], then the Wife shall be appointed Trustee for sale of [Suburb W] and the following shall apply:

6.1 the agent shall be as nominated by the Wife;

6.2 the solicitor shall be as nominated by the Wife;

6.3 [Suburb W] shall be initially sold via public auction, with such auction to occur within six (6) weeks of the property being listed for sale by the agent, with the reserve price as determined by the Wife;

6.4 if [Suburb W] remains unsold after a period of two (2) weeks following the auction, the Wife, as trustee for the sale, shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to list the property for sale via private treaty for a six (6) week period thereafter unless otherwise agreed to re-list the property for auction;

6.5 if [Suburb W] remains unsold after the private treaty period, the property shall be listed for sale via public auction again, with such auction to occur within a further four (4) week period, with the reserve price to be as recommended by the agent;

6.6.1 making the key and alarm codes (if any) available to the agent;

6.6.2 signing all documents requested by the agent;

6.6.3 executing a contract for sale in the form prepared by the solicitors having the contract of sale at the sale price;

6.6.4 allowing inspection of [Suburb W] at all times as requested by the agent;

6.6.5 ensuring [Suburb W] is in a neat and clean condition at the time of inspection by the agent and any prospective purchaser, with the costs of same to be reimbursed to the Wife from the sale proceeds;

6.6.6 not doing or saying anything to hinder or prevent a sale being effected

6.7 The Wife shall distribute the proceeds of sale in accordance with Order 5 above.

1. That pending sale of [Suburb W], the husband shall meet as and when the same fall due all costs and expenses relating to [Suburb W], including but not limited to all mortgage repayments, statutory charges, rates and outgoings.

2. The parties shall forthwith do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary including as Directors of [B6 Pty Ltd], to cause [B6 Pty Ltd] in its capacity as trustee of the Fund to sell [AA Property].

3. To facilitate compliance with the preceding Order the wife is appointed trustee to implement the sale of [AA Property] on behalf of [B6 Pty Ltd] and:

9.1 the Wife shall appoint an agent to conduct the sale of [AA Property] within 14 days;

9.2 the Wife shall appoint a solicitor to act on the sale of [AA Property] within 14 days; and

9.3 [AA Property] shall be sold by either expressions of interest or private treaty sale at an asking price of $2.3 million and in the event that [AA Property] is not sold by expressions of interest or private treaty sale within six weeks the wife shall take all steps to sell the property by public auction, and:-

9.3.1 The first auction shall take place within two months thereafter at a reserve price of $2.25 million;

9.3.2 The second auction shall be at a reserve price of $2 million and shall take place within a further two months.

9.3.3 The third auction shall be at a reserve price of $1.9 million and shall take place within a further two months.

1. That on settlement of the sale of [AA Property] the Wife shall take all steps to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:-

10.1 Any outstanding costs and agreed expenses of the sale including legal costs and disbursements, agents commission, advertising expenses, auction expenses and any adjustments due to the purchaser;

10.2 To then pay the remaining proceeds into the accounts of the Fund to be held in that account subject to these Orders.

1. That within 14 days of the settlement of the sale of [AA Property] the Husband shall nominate to [B6 Pty Ltd] a complying superannuation fund into which his member interest can be rolled and shall within seven days thereafter do all things necessary to pay into such complying superannuation fund his respective member balance in the Fund and shall thereupon do all things necessary to resign as a member of the Fund.

2. The husband's superannuation interests with the Fund shall be split to create a superannuation interest for the wife as follows:-

12.1 Pursuant to Section 90XT(2) of the Act and Regulation 27 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations the Court determines the amount in relation to the husband's superannuation in the Fund is $2,090,282.00.

12.2 Pursuant to Section 90XT(4) of the Act the Court allocates a base amount to the wife in respect of the husband's superannuation interests in the Fund of $817,887.00.

12.3 Pursuant to Section 90XT(1)(a) of the Act whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the husband's superannuation in the Fund the wife is entitled to be paid an amount calculated in accordance with the Family Law Regulations where the base amount is $817,887.00 and there is a corresponding reduction in the entitlement of the husband at the time of the splittable payment.

12.4 The operative time for the payment under this Order is four business days after service of this Order and settlement of the sale of [AA Property].

12.5 The Trustee shall do all such acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary, in accordance with the obligations set out under the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 to calculate the entitlement to make payment to the wife in accordance with these Orders.

19. That the Husband pay to the Wife within 28 days the following sums:-

19.1 $10,037.50 to reimburse her for his one-half share of the fees paid to the single expert quantity surveyor appointed in these proceedings;

19.2 $10,862.50 to reimburse her for her one-half share of the fees paid to the single expert plant and equipment valuer appointed in these proceedings.

1. Order 6 of the Orders made by this Honourable Court on 18 July 2022 be varied to extend the time for the payment by the Wife so that it is contemporaneous with the payment of the capital sum.
2. That all prior Orders in relation to the attendance of the Husband at [N Property] and [AA Property] be and hereby are discharged and that pending compliance with these Orders, the Husband be and hereby is restrained from attending the homestead at [N Property] and from causing and/or permitting any other person to do so without the prior written consent of the wife.
3. That in the event either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument pursuant to these orders, the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia be appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 , to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such defaulting a party and to do all things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.
4. Leave granted to the parties to file any Application in a Proceeding seeking further Orders and Directions as to the implementation of these Orders with the effect that the marital pool is distributed between the parties as to 50% in favour of the wife and 50% in favour of the husband.

1. On the last afternoon of the trial the husband also amended his final relief sought by way of a minute of Order (Exhibit 48). He seeks:

Family Trust and [N Property]

1. That in respect of the Family Trust:-

1.1 the Husband and Wife as Directors of [B6 Pty Ltd] shall do all acts and things and sign all documents required within 14 days to transfer to the Wife the plant, equipment, livestock and [agricultural product] recording in the accounts of the Family Trust;

1.2 the Husband and Wife as Directors of [B6 Pty Ltd] shall do all acts and things and sign all documents required within three months to transfer the title and interest in [N Property] to the Wife at a value of $8.5 million;

1.3 pending the transfer pursuant to Order 1.2, the Wife is granted exclusive occupancy of [N Property] and the Wife shall be solely entitled to conduct the day to day [agricultural] activities in the ordinary course of business of the Family Trust including in respect of the management of livestock at [N Property];

1.4 Notwithstanding the preceding Order, the Wife shall grant access to the Husband to remove the Husband's [N Property] property, such access to be on the following terms:-

1.4.1 The removal of items shall be undertaken in the period commencing 14 days after these Orders and ending 8 weeks thereafter;

1.4.2 The Husband shall at no time enter or attempt to enter the homestead of [N Property] and he is restrained accordingly;

1.4.3 The Husband shall provide the Wife with no less than 24 hours notice of his intention to attend [N Property] on each occasion;

1.4.4 The Husband shall be at liberty to appoint delegates, contractors and agents to attend [N Property] on this behalf within the terms of these Orders.

1.5 Following the transfer pursuant to Order 1.2, the Wife shall thereafter indemnify and keep indemnified the Husband in relation to all liabilities in respect of [N Property];

1.6 the Husband shall within three months appoint a new trustee of the Family Trust, being a corporate trustee of which he is the sole director and shareholder.

1. That simultaneously with Order 1.6, the Wife shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary so as to:

2.1 relinquish any prior nominations made by the Wife in respect of the Family Trust, with the Husband to prepare such documents at his own expense and provide to the Wife;

2.2 forego any right or claim she may have, whether actual, contingent, or otherwise in respect of the Family Trust, including without limitation any right or expectation as a beneficiary, with the Husband to prepare such documents at his own expense and provide them to the Wife;

2.3 assign to the Husband the whole of her right, title and interest (if any) in any loan account or unpaid present entitlements owed to her or to any of the Wife's entities by or in respect of the Family Trust, with the Husband to prepare such documents at his own expense and provide them to the Wife such that the Wife and the Wife's entities will have no right, title, or interest in, or be owed money, by [B6 Pty Ltd] as trustee for the Family Trust and there will be no payment and/or consideration due to the Wife in respect of the same save as provided for in these Orders; and

2.4 as between the parties, the Husband shall thereafter be solely entitled to all interests in relation to the Family Trust and [B6 Pty Ltd] in its capacity as trustee of the Family Trust.

1. In the event that after the date of these Orders any action, claim, suit, demand, debt or liability in connection with the Family Trust is asserted or established against [B6 Pty Ltd] or either of the parties (other than by or on behalf of one of the parties) by reason of or in connection with any errors or misstatements in the records and reporting of the Family Trust during the period from the date of inception of the Family Trust to the date of these Orders, including without limitation:

[Suburb W] property

4 That simultaneously with Order 1.2:

4.1 The Wife shall do all such acts and things, including signing all documents and paying any money, as may be necessary to effect or procure the removal of the [Suburb W] Property Caveat One, [Suburb W] Property Caveat Two and [Suburb W] Property Caveat Three;

4.2 The Wife shall do all such acts and things, including sign all documents, as may be necessary to transfer the whole of her right, title, and interest in the [Suburb W] property to the Husband unencumbered; and

4.3 The Husband do all such acts and things, including sign all documents, as may be necessary to secure a release and discharge of the Wife's liability in respect of the borrowings secured by the [Suburb W] Mortgage, and from such date the Husband indemnifies and holds harmless the Wife from and against any such liability;

4.4 Pending the transfer of the [Suburb W] property to the Husband, the Husband is to indemnify and save harmless the Wife in relation to all outgoings payable in respect of the [Suburb W] property.

1. In the event that the Husband should default in complying with his obligations pursuant to Order 4.3 and such default is not remedied by him within 21 days of the due date or Order 11, then the Husband shall do all acts and things and execute all documents necessary to list [Suburb W] property for sale by auction as follows:

5.1 the Husband shall within 10 days appoint an agent ("the agent");

5.2 the Husband shall within 10 days appoint a solicitor ("the solicitor");

5.3 the [Suburb W] property shall be initially sold via public auction, with such auction to occur within six (6) weeks of the property being listed for sale by the agent or the agent acting on the sale shall make a final decision in respect of such marketing, with the reserve price to be the sum of $14,500,000;

5.4 if the [Suburb W] property remains unsold for a period of one (1) week following the public auction referred to in Order 5.3 herein, the Husband shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to list the property for sale via private treaty for a four (4) week period or the agent acting on the sale shall make a final decision in respect of such marketing;

5.6.1 making the key and alarm codes (if any) available to the agent;

5.6.2 signing all documents requested by the agent to sell the [Suburb W] property;

5.6.3 executing a contract for sale in the form prepared by the solicitors having the contract of sale at the sale price;

5.6.4 allowing inspection of the [Suburb W] property at all times as requested by the agent;

5.6.5 ensuring the [Suburb W] property presents in a neat and clean condition at the time of inspection by the agent and any prospective purchaser, with the costs of same to be met by the Husband;

5.6.6 not doing or saying anything to hinder or prevent a sale being effected.

5.7 the Husband shall inform and copy the Wife into all communications with the agent and the solicitor on the sale of the [Suburb W] property.

1. That on settlement of the sale of the [Suburb W] property the Husband shall take all steps to distribute the proceeds of sale in the following manner and priority:-

6.1 Any outstanding costs and agreed expenses of the sale including legal costs and disbursements, agents commission, advertising expenses, auction expenses and any adjustments due to the purchaser, and in reimbursement to the husband of such agreed costs of sale as have been paid by him;

6.2 Payment of any and all monies due and owing to the mortgagee, ANZ Bank in respect of the mortgage secured over [Suburb W] being referable only to loan account number [...]32;

6.3 In the event that the Husband defaults on the payment to the Wife pursuant to Order 11, a payment to the Wife in the sum required to effect and overall adjustment of the parties net property contemplated by Order 11.

6.4 The remaining balance (if any) shall be paid to the Husband.

1. That pending sale of [Suburb W], the husband shall meet as and when the same fall due all costs and expenses relating to [Suburb W], including but not limited to all mortgage repayments, statutory charges, rates and outgoings.

[AA Property]

1. The parties shall forthwith do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary, including as Directors of [B6 Pty Ltd], to cause [B6 Pty Ltd] in its capacity as trustee of [Superannuation Fund 1] to sell the [AA Property].
2. To facilitate compliance with the preceding order and to implement the sale of the [AA Property] on behalf of [B6 Pty Ltd]:

9.1 the parties in their capacity as Directors of [B6 Pty Ltd] shall agree on and appoint an agent to conduct the sale of the [AA Property]within 14 days of the date of these Orders, but failing agreement shall within a further 7 days write a joint letter to the President of the Real Estate Institute of NSW requesting the President nominate an agent to act on the sales and shall forthwith act on that nomination;

9.2 the parties in their capacity as Directors of [B6 Pty Ltd] shall agree on and appoint a solicitor to act on the sale of the [AA Property] within 14 days of the date of these Orders, but failing agreement shall within a further 7 days write a joint letter to the President of the Law Society of NSW requesting the president nominate a solicitor and shall forthwith act on that nomination;

9.3 the [AA Property] shall be sold by expressions of interest or an 8 hour online auction with a reserve or minimum price to be agreed between the parties and in the event the parties in their capacity as directors of [B6 Pty Ltd] cannot agree on how the sale is to proceed (including the marketing to be undertaken and the reserve or minimum price for each property) the agent acting on the sale shall make a final decision in respect of such marketing, and in the event the parties cannot agree upon the reserve price then:

9.3.1 the reserve price for [AA Property] in respect of the first auction shall be $2.25 million;

9.3.2 the reserve price for [AA Property] in respect of the second auction shall be $2 million; and

9.3.3 the reserve price for [AA Property] in respect of the third auction shall be $1.9 million.

9.4 In the event that the [AA Property] are not sold by expressions of interest within six weeks of the listing of the property, then:

9.4.1 the first auction shall be online and take place within three months or the agent acting on the sale shall make a final decision in respect of such marketing;

9.4.2 the second auction shall be either online or in person as or the agent acting on the sale shall make a final decision in respect of such marketing, and

9.4.3 the third auction shall be either online or in person as agreed by the parties or failing agreement the agent acting on the sale shall make a final decision in respect of such marketing.

1. Upon settlement of the sale of the [AA Property], the sale proceeds shall be disbursed as follows:

10.1 In payment of any agent's commission, advertising expenses, auction expenses and legal costs and disbursements of the sale and any adjustments due to the purchaser;

10.2 In payment of any tax referrable to the sale of the [AA Property]; and

10.3 The balance to be paid into ANZ Business Cash Management Account held in the name of [Superannuation Fund 1] account number ending in [...]02.

Cash payment

1. That the Husband shall within 3 months from settlement of [AA Property] pay or cause to be paid to the Wife a further sum in the amount required to effect such division so that the Wife receives 40% of the net property pool.

Joint Bank

1. The parties shall within 14 days do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to close ANZ Bank joint bank account number [...]73 and distribute the balance equally between them with such distributions attributed to their respective shares of the net assets.

Declarations

1. The Husband be and is hereby declared to be the sole owner to the exclusion of the Wife of the whole of his right title and interest in the following:

13.1 Husband's entities;

13.2 Husband's shares;

13.3 Husband's vehicles;

13.4 Husband's bank account;

13.5 Husband's household contents;

13.6 Husband's superannuation entitlements; and

13.7 All other property (including superannuation entitlements) and financial resources, of whatsoever nature and kind, in the name or possession of the Husband as at the date of the making of these Orders and in the future.

1. The Wife be and is hereby declared to be the sole owner to the exclusion of the Husband of the whole of her right title and interest in the following:

14.1 Wife's entities;

14.2 Wife's shares;

14.3 Wife's bank accounts;

14.4 Wife's vehicles;

14.5 Wife's animals;

14.6 Wife's household contents;

14.7 Wife's jewellery;

14.8 Wife's superannuation entitlements; and

14.9 All other property (including superannuation entitlements) and financial resources, of whatsoever nature and kind, in the name or possession of the Wife as at the date of the making of these Orders and in the future.

[Superannuation Fund 1]

1. In accordance with s 90XT(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Wife is entitled to the specified percentage, being 100 per cent, of the Husband's interest in [Superannuation Fund 1] and the entitlement of the Husband is correspondingly reduced.
2. That Order 15 have effect from the operative time and the operative time is 10 days after service of a sealed copy of this Order on the trustee of [Superannuation Fund 1].
3. The trustee of [Superannuation Fund 1] shall do all acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary to cause the accountants for [Superannuation Fund 1] to:

17.1 calculate, in accordance with the requirements of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 the entitlement created for the Wife by Order 15; and

17.2 pay the entitlement to the Wife whenever the trustee makes a splittable payment from the Husband's interest in [Superannuation Fund 1].

1. The parties do all acts and things and execute all documents (including as directors of [B6 Pty Ltd]) to roll-out the Wife's interest in [Superannuation Fund 1] to such complying superannuation fund as is nominated by her.

2. Forthwith upon compliance with Order 18 and the sale of the [AA Property], the parties take all steps to cause the Fund to vest, determined and deregistered at the cost of the Fund.

3. Orders 15 to 18 bind the trustee of [Superannuation Fund 1] which at the date of these Orders is [B6 Pty Ltd].

4. In the event there is any net tax payable by [Superannuation Fund 1] or by either of the Husband or the Wife, or a tax refund issues as a consequence of the splitting of the Husband's entitlement, the following shall occur:

21.1 In the event of a taxation liability, the Wife shall pay or cause to be paid any such liability forthwith upon receipt of any Notice of Assessment issued by the Australian Taxation Office; or

21.2 In the event of a tax refund, the Husband and Wife forthwith cause the said refund to be paid to the Wife.

1. Pending the superannuation split and roll-out pursuant to Orders 15 to 18, each of the Husband and Wife shall be and is hereby restrained from dealing with and/or disposing of any of the assets of [Superannuation Fund 1] other than in accordance with the terms of these Orders or with the unanimous written consent of the directors of the trustee (which consent is not to be unreasonably withheld).

[B6 Pty Ltd]

1. Forthwith upon compliance with Order 19 (causing [Superannuation Fund 1] to vest), the Husband and the Wife shall do all acts and things and sign all documents (including as directors and shareholders of [B6 Pty Ltd]) necessary to transfer his shareholding in [B6 Pty Ltd] to the Wife.

General indemnities

25 Except as otherwise specifically provided for by any of these Orders:

25.1 the Wife hereby indemnifies the Husband from and in respect of all actions, claims, suits and demands as may be made against the Husband in relation to all liabilities in the name of the Wife;

25.2 the Husband hereby indemnifies the Wife from and in respect of all actions, claims, suits and demands as may be made against the Wife in relation to all liabilities in the name of the Husband; and

25.3 each of the Husband and the Wife release the other from all debts, liabilities or claims owing from one to the other.

Implementation of Orders

1. Pending compliance with Order 24, each of the Husband and Wife shall be and is hereby restrained from dealing with and/or disposing of any of the assets and/or authorising any action on behalf of the Family Trust and/or [B6 Pty Ltd] other than in accordance with the terms of these Orders or with the written consent of the other party.

2. Within 14 days of the date of these Orders the Wife shall pay to the Husband one half of the fees paid to [Ms T] by the Husband in these proceedings with respect Expanded Scope of Work Report in accordance with the Orders made on 18 July 2022 as amended on 28 July 2022.

3. Pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in the event a party neglects or refuses to sign a document or instrument to implement these Orders then a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Court is authorised to sign on behalf of that party.

29 All previous orders be discharged other than the order referred to in Order 27.

30 The Wife pay the costs of and incidental to this Application.

(Highlighting removed)

1. As can be seen, some of the orders or parts of them were the subject of agreement. I am told it is agreed that:

(a) The N Property, valued at $8.5 million and the plant, equipment, livestock and agricultural product, each owned by the Family Trust, will be transferred from the Family Trust to the wife in specie.

(b) The husband will retain the balance of the Family Trust, including the shares it holds in B2 Pty Ltd and the benefit of the wife's credit loan account.

(c) B6 Pty Ltd is to be replaced as the corporate trustee of the Family Trust.

(d) B6 Pty Ltd, being also the trustee of Superannuation Fund 1, will be transferred to the wife.

(e) There will be a superannuation splitting order from the husband's interest in Superannuation Fund 1 in favour of the wife.

(f) The AA Property, owned by Superannuation Fund 1, will be sold.

(g) The husband will have the opportunity to acquire the wife's interest in the Suburb W property upon payment to her of a cash adjusting sum. In default, the property is to be sold.

1. Superficially, other subject matters appear to be the subject of broad agreement. On closer examination the respective minutes of order contain not insignificant differences as to methodology, chronology, and control. Each minute of order contained lengthy schedules defining items of property. Some definitions in the schedules, of implicit importance to the parties, were the subject of disagreement.

1. In determining claims for alteration of property interests between married couples, I am required to:

(a) Make findings as to the identity and value of the property (including superannuation interests), liabilities, and financial resources of the parties, or either of them, at the time of the final hearing, and determine the legal and equitable interests of the parties in such property;

(b) Consider, identify, and assess the contributions by the parties to the acquisition, conservation, and/or improvement of their property, including financial and non-financial contributions and any contributions to the welfare of the family before, during, and after the relationship came to an end;

(c) After consideration of altering the interests in the property pool on the basis of contributions, to consider whether there should be any further adjustment to either of the parties on account of the matters set out in s 79(4)(d)-(g) of the Act, including any relevant considerations under s 75(2); and

(d) Ensure that any order made is just and equitable.

1. The final version of the joint balance sheet of the parties became Exhibit 47. The identity and value of property was agreed except for the items that appear in bold as determined the following table:

Loan account Mr Sartre and Ms Henschel Family Trust

Loan account Mr Sartre and Ms Henschel Family Trust

Item 27 - The advance to the husband for the ZZ Street property

1. The husband seeks a finding that he is indebted by way of loan agreement made between he and his parents in June 2001 in the sum of $841,667, of which "$500,000 is the principal loan for [the ZZ Street property] plus $341,666 interest" (Exhibit 47, footnote Item 27). He has the onus to establish on the evidence a credible foundation as to the existence of this loan facility and to identify the evidence to enable findings to be made as to its terms, including when the loan agreement was made, the process of the advance, the duration of the loan, and the required repayments of the loan (Bircher & Bircher and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 123; (2016) FLC 93-721).
2. The wife contends that the evidence does not establish an entry of a loan agreement or contract in 2001 between the husband and his parents. In the alternative, she submits that if the fact and terms of a loan agreement are established, while the debt is not extinguished, enforcement of any liability pursuant it is statute barred by operation of s 14 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ("the Limitation Act") (Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 at 405 and 425). By way of further alternative, if the first alternate contention is not accepted, in circumstances where no demand has been made for repayment for 24 years since the entry of the agreement, the "contract has been abandoned" (Fitzgerald v Masters [1956] HCA 53; (1956) 95 CLR 420 at 432; ; at ). Her next alternative contention is that if at the time of the advance it was a loan, and it is not statue barred or the contract abandoned, the loan now is not likely to be called upon to be repaid or enforced in the sense identified in ; ("") and the liability of the husband can be disregarded.

Me: "we could receive potentially circa $2mil for the property, but it is not selling."

My mother: "we want to be bought out."

Me: "another option would be for me to keep the property and to pay you out your share. I could borrow money from ANZ to pay you back your half share, but I would need to borrow the balance from you".

My mother: "we would need to enter into an agreement and ensure interest accrues."

Me: "of course and I will pay you back upon your request".

(Bold emphasis added)

1. In his Case Outline filed on 26 February 2025 the husband contended that the evidence established the fact and value asserted in Item 27 being "a debt originally created pursuant to a written heads of agreement dated [...] June 2001" (emphasis added).
2. The Heads of Agreement document dated June 2001 (Exhibit 13) records:
   • [The husband] to arrange a loan by 30 September 2001 of around $400,000 ([the husband's father's] original investment plus an "interest" component to compensate for the fact that [the husband] occupied the property as his home). This amount would be passed to [the husband's brother] as a loan from [the husband's father] and [the husband's mother]. [The husband's brother] will repay [the husband's father] & [the husband's mother] as circumstances allow at an interest rate equal to the rate paid on Were's deposit notes. This will be the subject of a separate agreement.
   • [The husband] will repay the $550,000.00 balance as circumstances allow. This amount will carry interest at the Were's deposit note rate or equivalent interest rate...
   • ...
   • [The husband's father] & [the husband's mother] will provide [the husband] with a letter relinquishing any equity in [the ZZ Street property] on the payment of the total $1,050,000.00 plus interest. In the meantime the debt will be an unregistered first charge on [the ZZ Street property].
3. The Heads of Agreement contains a handwritten asterisk indicating that the "550,000" is to be replaced with "500,000". As to this amendment, in his affidavit the husband said:
   1. The agreement refers to the value of the [ZZ Street] property as $2,100,000 however on the day of signing, I said to my parents, "the value of $2.1 includes the commission on sale, why don't we agree to the flat figure of $2mil?" to which my parents agreed. I then crossed out the sum of $550,000 owing to my parents and replaced the figure with $500,000.
4. In his affidavit the husband also said he obtained a loan with the ANZ Bank secured by way of mortgage over the ZZ Street property, and that he borrowed the balance of the $500,000 from his parents by way of a loan, with his parents providing him a letter relinquishing their equity in the ZZ Street property.

(a) It was "determined" that the husband would repay $1 million, of which $500,000 was "not required to be repaid at that time and was agreed to be a loan from [the husband's father] and I to [the husband], with interest. [The husband's father] and I received $500,000 from [the husband]."

(b) "[The husband's father] and I entered the Heads of Agreement" (emphasis added). Notwithstanding this evidence, the Heads of Agreement document, is not signed by either of the husband's parents.

(c) She and the husband's father agreed to provide the husband with a letter relinquishing any equity in the ZZ Street property on the payment of $1 million plus interest, to be secured by an "Unregistered First Charge" on the property.

1. A letter from the husband's father to the parties dated 3 August 2017 and the reply email of the wife dated 7 August 2017 became Exhibit 12. It records the husband's father informing the wife of the arrangement, and the wife responding to enquire as to the current balance owing, including principal and interest, pursuant to the 27 June 2001 agreement. It was not suggested that the wife ever received a response to that enquiry. The husband's mother gave evidence that around the same time, in or around August 2017, the wife asked to see the financial statements, as she wanted "to see what's due to [her] family", and the husband's mother said "[n]o". The husband did not challenge the wife's evidence that she was not aware of the fact of, or contended terms of, the 2001 agreement, until 2017. I so find.
2. The husband's mother said that at or about the time the husband and the wife separated in April 2020, the husband approached her enquiring as how much he "owe[d]" and "what the interest is". No evidence was adduced that either the husband's mother or father responded to that enquiry.
3. At the start of the trial, the husband contended that Exhibit 13 recorded in writing the terms of the loan agreement between he and his parents, his assertion being that the debt was originally created "pursuant to a written heads of agreement", it being "[t]he formalisation of the original agreement" (emphasis added), that the principle advanced by way of the loan was $500,000, and that the advance was secured by way of "an equitable mortgage as documented in the [Heads of Agreement]".
4. By the end of the trial, he submitted that the Heads of Agreement document should be taken as "evidence corroborative of the arrangement that was entered into between the parties in 2001" (Transcript 7 March 2025, p.48 lines 36-40, p.51 lines 38-39), such that the Heads of Agreement reflected the "in principle" agreement between the husband and his parents made June 2001, and that the terms contained in the document were "modified" or varied on the same day, such that the loan agreement sought to be included as a liability at Item 27 was partly oral and partly in writing. He abandoned any contention as to the loan being secured. He submitted that a finding ought to be made that the "loan was payable at call" and findings that:

(a) The value of the principal provided by his parents pursuant to a loan agreement was $500,000;

(b) The term of the agreement as to when the loan was repayable being "as circumstances allow" should be construed to mean repayment was to be made upon the parents requesting repayment, subject to the husband being in a financial position to make the payment; and

(c) The evidence as to the value of the interest payable on the principle advanced was found in Exhibits 45 and 46. The quantum of this interest value was not contested by the wife. Her case was that this value had no relevance because the evidence did not permit a finding to be made as to the inclusion of Item 27 as a liability in the balance sheet.

1. The wife does not dispute that the husband received a benefit from his parents by way of the assignment of their beneficial interest in the ZZ Street property to him in 2001.
2. I find that the husband and his parents entered an arrangement in 2001 as to an advancement by way of a vendor finance source to acquire their beneficial interest in the ZZ Street property. However, I am not persuaded that the onus of proof has been discharged to make the necessary findings as contended by the husband as to the terms of the 2001 loan agreement because the evidence does not establish:

(a) The value of the consideration by which the husband acquired his parents' beneficial interest in the ZZ Street property, to in turn establish the value of the principle advanced by way of loan of $500,000; or

(b) The duration of the loan and when repayment of the loan was required.

1. As to the finding sought as to the value of the principle advanced pursuant to the contended partly oral and partly in writing loan agreement:

(a) The import of the evidence of the husband's mother was that exhibit 13 contained the complete terms of the loan agreement entered on 29 June 2001. If that evidence is accepted, exhibit 13 does not record an advance by she and her husband of $1 million. On one construction it values the provision at $400,000 plus $500,000 (total $900,000). On another construction, it is "around $400,000" plus an unknown pre-agreement interest component plus $500,000. On a third construction, it is a total of $1.05 million. The husband conceded in submissions that the document lacks precision. He said that looking at it alone to determine the value of the consideration provided for the husband to acquire his parents' beneficial interest in the ZZ Street property becomes "a bit convoluted". No construction of the document plainly achieves a value of $1 million.

(b) If, as asserted by the husband's mother, the loan agreement between she, her husband, and the husband, was for $1 million, part paid for $500,000, the evidence as to part payment does not reconcile with Exhibit 49. It records the husband borrowed $400,000 from the ANZ bank by way of mortgage entered in late 2001 registered on the ZZ Street property. On his evidence, the value of the funds he paid his parents is the value of the mortgage at $400,000, not $500,000. The husband did not adduce evidence explaining the source of the additional $100,000 if paid to his parents over and above the monies secured by way of the ANZ mortgage dated late 2001. At the conclusion of submissions, the husband conceded that his evidence of paying $500,000 to his parents was wrong, and that it must have been $400,000. This concession does not reconcile with his mother's evidence that she and her husband received $500,000 from the husband. The lacuna in the evidence was not explained. It in turn did not accord with the husband's final submission that there had been part-performance of the contended agreement by way of his payment of $500,000 to his parents.

I am not satisfied that a consideration of all the evidence establishes the value of the principle advanced pursuant to the loan agreement was $1 million, or that $500,000 was paid, and hence I am not satisfied that the "balance" then payable and outstanding from 2001, contended to be $500,000, is established. The evidence does not discharge the onus of proof to establish the terms of the 2001 loan agreement.

1. As to the duration of the loan and when the repayment of the loan was required, the husband submitted that the term of the agreement "as circumstances allow" could be interpreted "[e]ither" from the subjective view of the husband or the subjective view of his mother. He said that the difficulty of the "imprecision of a term like "as circumstances allow"" does not "derogate from the legal significance of it being a term of the agreement", and that the agreement was not one that is "devoid of a qualification in relation to repayment". Neither the husband nor the husband's mother adduced evidence as to their subjective view as to the interpretation of a term of the contended loan agreement to require repayment "as circumstances allow".
2. The meaning of the essential term of this agreement as to when repayment is required ought to be discovered objectively if it is to be an agreement capable of enforcement and thus included as a liability in the balance sheet. As a matter of construction, this essential term as to the duration of the loan and when repayment is required could be, as implicitly conceded by the husband, capable of multiple objective interpretations. The term for repayment could be anchored solely to the husband being in a financial position to make payment "as circumstances allow". This essential term of the agreement is silent as to whether the husband's financial position at the time of repayment is to be a product of his then assets and resources, or his capacity to access borrowed funds from another source, or a combination of both. It may be that the essential term of repayment is a dual trigger of a condition precedent of the husband's parent's requesting payment and the husband being in a financial position to make the payment, whether from his own assets, his resources, or refinancing from other borrowings, or a combination of each or all. The contended agreement is void. An essential term as to when repayment is required must be capable of a definite meaning to enable findings to be made to the requisite degree as to the necessary contractual intention of the parties to the agreement.
3. In the event the findings as to the evidence being insufficient to discharge the onus of proof to establish the terms of the 2001 loan agreement or it is void are in error, the husband submitted that construction of the loan agreement expressly postponed the arising of a cause of action for recovery until a demand for repayment was made. The time that any cause of action accrues as to the amount due under a loan contract is determined by the repayment terms of that agreement. For the reasons identified, I do not accept that the husband has demonstrated the entry of an agreement that expressly provided that the term "as circumstances allow" ought to be constructed as meaning other than that there was no fixed time for repayment and hence any debt was payable on demand, whatever the amount of the advance ( ;

(1) An action on any of the following causes of action is not maintainable if brought after the expiration of a limitation period of six years running from the date on which the cause of action first accrues to the plaintiff or to a person through whom the plaintiff claims -

(a) a cause of action founded on contract (including quasi contract) not being a cause of action founded on a deed,

1. No evidence was adduced as to a confirmation in writing signed by the maker (the husband), being the person against whom the cause of action arises, within the period as prescribed by the Limitation Act (see s 54 Limitation Act). Exhibit 22 is evidence to the contrary, being the husband's executed Personal Statement of Financial Position dated 2 December 2014 provided to the ANZ Bank. It records the husband's certification that "I/We declare that the information given on this form is true and correct". The husband did not identify the fact or value of any liability to his parents as at December 2014. He had the opportunity to do so.
2. There was no explanation as to the inconsistency between implicit contents of the husband's mother's affidavit evidence, being that she and her husband had not provided a letter relinquishing any equity in the ZZ Street property, and the husband's affidavit that such a letter had been provided. The Heads of Agreement recorded that the letter would only be provided when all the advance or loan funds were paid.
3. No evidence was adduced as to any demand being made by the husband's parents in the six-year period after the entry of the 2001 facility or loan agreement, or as to any demand being made at any time up to the trial, including during the current litigation. I find that the husband's parents permitted the statute of limitation to extinguish any claim they otherwise would have had in respect of the balance of the facility due by the husband to them in June 2007 due to the operation of s 14 of the Limitation Act. Whatever the loan arrangement was between the husband and his parents, I find it was no longer legally enforceable from that time.

(a) Apply $300,000 or $350,000 to invest in the AO Venue in or around 2003, and the payment of $499,999 in legal fees pursuing the AO Venue litigation in the Federal Court in 2006; and/or

(b) Acquire the Town AK property in 2005, using mortgage funds raised on the ZZ Street property to that acquisition; and/or

(c) Apply a dividend from B Pty Ltd of $466,666 to reduce the Town AK property mortgage secured on the ZZ Street property in 2008.

1. In November 2010, the husband's parents, by way of CC Pty Ltd, advanced $161,198 applied to the acquisition of the AA Property for $770,000. If the cause of action had not then been extinguished by the statute of limitation, the husband's parents were aware of this transaction and hence had some knowledge as to the likelihood that the husband's "circumstances allow[ed]" at least partial repayment of the advance. Hence, the statute of limitation to extinguish any claim the husband's parents otherwise would have had in respect of the balance of the 2001 facility due by the husband to them expired in November 2016 by operation of the Limitation Act.
2. Should the finding as to recovery of the 2001 advance being statute barred be in error, in circumstances where:

(a) The loan has been outstanding for almost 24 years;

(b) The husband has had ample opportunities to repay the loan, as recorded earlier in these reasons, including by way of him applying the part of the funds commenced to be advanced to him from August 2015 (some nine years ago) as identified in these reasons and he failing to do so;

(c) The husband's parents, by way of their various entities, continuing to advance funds to the husband and his corporate entities from 2010 up to the date of trial, either by way of oral agreement (the advance of an additional $575,000 to the husband commencing from August 2015 by way of a separate contended loan agreement), or by formal written executed agreements that have been repaid as recorded earlier in these reasons;

(d) The content of Exhibit 22; and

(e) The content of Exhibit 21, being a personal financial statement executed by the husband and the wife and dated April 2018 provided to the ANZ Bank. It does not record any liability of the husband to his parents or BB Pty Ltd.

I infer and find that the 2001 facility or loan agreement can be safely disregarded as a liability of the husband as it is unlikely to be enforced by his mother or called upon for repayment (Biltoft & Biltoft).

1. Item 27 will be excluded from the balance sheet and will be considered in the contribution findings.

Item 29A - The 2015 to 2020 advances from BB Pty Ltd to the husband

1. It is uncontroversial that over the period from August 2015 until April 2020 the husband received $575,000 from BB Pty Ltd. The husband sought a finding that he and his mother entered an oral loan agreement as to the advance of these funds and that value of Item 29A is $602,552, of which $575,000 is the principal loan and $27,552 is interest.
2. The wife contended that the evidence did not establish that a loan agreement was entered in the terms contended by the husband. She submitted that the evidence establishes that these monies were a gift, or in the alternative, if a loan agreement is established, any advance is "unlikely to be repaid".
3. To give context to Item 29A, the husband said in 2014 a drought was having a significant impact on the N Property and that the wife was asking for "more funds for the farm". He said because of these increasing costs and conditions he approached his mother in 2014 and said:
   1. ... "Can you help me financially? I'm really struggling with all the extra costs of the farm due to the drought". My mother said to me words to the effect of, "Yes of course, why don't I start paying you $25,000 a quarter. The money will need to be repaid if I ask you for it and there will be interest charged the same as always" to which I replied, "Thank you very much Mum. I agree I will pay it if you ask and of course there will be interest".
4. In her affidavit the husband's mother said:

52.1 I recall in about late 2014, [the husband] said to me words to the effect of, "Can you help out financially. I'm really struggling with all the extra costs due to the drought" to which I replied, "Yes of course, why don't I start paying you $25,000 a quarter. The monies will need to be repaid if I ask you to repay them. Interest will be charged in the same way as we have always done". [The husband] replied to me saying, "Thank you very much Mum. I agree to that". I expected [the husband] to repay us eventually.

1. The husband contends that the conversations between him and his mother in 2014 provide a credible foundation as to an oral loan agreement being made, including as to the duration of the loan, the required repayments of the loan, and the interest rate applicable thereto.
2. He submitted this oral agreement made between him and his mother, on behalf of BB Pty Ltd, was a line of credit, absent limitation, repayable at call and on demand when made by his mother on behalf of BB Pty Ltd, with interest being "charged in the same way as we have always done". He confirmed during submissions that the terms of the agreement had not changed at any time.
3. Whilst the wife may have had access to some joint account statements including the mortgage offset account, she said that she was not aware of the deposits from the husband's mother into the accounts pursuant to this contended loan agreement as she did not look at the accounts. I accept that evidence.
4. The husband was challenged as to the conversation with his mother in 2014, and as to the request for monies being brought on by drought at the N Property. He said that they were not able to sell livestock and had to make mortgage repayments. He said the drought did not break until 2019. It was suggested to him that he did not have any pressing need for the monies in 2014 or thereafter. He did not agree. The husband's mother was not challenged as to her version of the 2014 conversation.
5. I do not accept the husband's evidence as to the 2014 conversation with his mother as credible because:

(a) The first payment was made pursuant to the contended agreement in August 2015. He could not explain why there was delay for close to 12 months from the time of the request for funds and the first payment from BB Pty Ltd, casting a shadow on the integrity of the contention as to the reasons for the entry of an oral loan agreement by way of a line of credit absent limitation.

(b) I do not accept that the husband and wife had insufficient monies in 2014 to function on a day-to-day basis, including meeting the rural property running costs and its liabilities. Exhibit 22, the husband's executed Personal Statement of Financial Position dated December 2014 to the ANZ, recorded that he had $300,000 in his ANZ account. The husband agreed that bank statements recorded that at the time of the first payment in August 2015 his ANZ offset account had a balance between $700,000 to $800,000 (Exhibit 23). The husband said that these funds were the money of B Pty Ltd and were not his own, and that every three to four months his "financial controller" would "square it up" and the balance would "drop" to $20,000 to $30,000. The husband agreed that at no time was he in debt to B Pty Ltd, and that in fact, he loaned the company $300,000 in 2014. Further, the husband's own evidence in his affidavit was that B2 Pty Ltd purchased the Suburb J property in early 2015, and that he had the capacity to, and did, advance to the company by way of loan $400,000 at that time to part fund the purchase. Exhibit 21, the Personal Statement of Financial Position dated April 2018 executed by the husband and the wife, records that their ANZ account(s) at that time had credit balances of $637,194, and $25,000. The husband said in his oral evidence that he applied the monies advanced not only for the farm, but for loans to B Pty Ltd, for the parties' living expenses, for share trading, for development applications for the ZZ Street property, purchasing the Suburb W property, to pay tax debts and then to accumulate funds in an offset account to reduce the interest on mortgage home repayments. I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the parties were not in financial need as asserted by the husband at the time of the provision of the funds, or over the period the funds were advanced.

(c) Exhibit 21 does not record any liability of the husband to his mother or to BB Pty Ltd.

(d) The husband did not receive advances in the terms of the alleged oral agreement, being of $25,000 per quarter from BB Pty Ltd over the period of the advances. The advances received were not made each quarter, being paid sporadically at irregular periods, in sums varying between $25,000 and $125,000, carrying with them unusual descriptions such as "refund" and details in bank statements that were not explained. The amounts advanced annually varied between $150,000 in each of 2015 and 2019 and $25,000 in 2020. No evidence was adduced as to any requests being made by the husband of his mother or BB Pty Ltd for advances to be made at any time, or in any amount, after the 2014 conversation.

The husband did not adduce evidence of any reply to his mother's statement. No evidence was advanced by the husband's mother that she could no longer provide the husband with funds. I do not find that evidence credible because:

(i) The husband's mother again commenced to provide him with monies in 2022. It was not explained why these further advances were not the subject of the 2014 loan agreement entered, being to provide periodic funds absent limitation.

(ii) Exhibit 29 records that for the year ended 30 June 2021, BB Pty Ltd recorded a profit before tax of greater than $2.7 million, having cash assets of close to $1.5 million, and for the year ended 30 June 2022 year, it had cash assets close to $1.9 million after it advances over $3 million to B2 Pty Ltd.

(iii) As recorded later in these reasons, the husband's mother continued to provide her other children with funds by way of BB Pty Ltd from 2020 until 2022.

(iv) The husband's mother advanced to the husband personally $155,000 from October 2022 until August 2023. She paid $37,400 for his legal fees in December 2022. BB Pty Ltd advanced to him $895,000 from July 2022 to November 2024.

(v) The husband in his trial affidavit identified at paragraph 350 that he has recently had a conversation with his mother in which he asked to borrow money to cover his expenses, to which she replied "yes, of course".

1. Exhibits 29 and 33 are the published financial statements of BB Pty Ltd for the financial years ending 30 June 2016 to 30 June 2020. They record a loan account for the husband and each of his siblings, with the balance of those loan accounts:

(a) In the year ending 30 June 2016 a debit of $100,000 to each of the husband and his siblings, they each receiving the same benefit;

(b) In the year ending 30 June 2017 a debit of approximately $189,000 to the husband and $225,000 to each of his siblings;

(c) In the year ending 30 June 2018 a debit of approximately $314,000 to the husband and $300,000 to each of his siblings;

(d) In the year ending 30 June 2019 a debit of approximately $489,000 to the husband and $425,000 and $451,000 to his siblings;

(e) In the year ending 30 June 2020 a debit of approximately $564,000 to the husband and $525,000 and $554,000 to his siblings;

(f) In the year ended 30 June 2021 a debit of approximately $564,000 to the husband and $600,000 and $629,000 to his siblings;

(g) In the year ended 30 June 2022 a debit of approximately $564,000 to the husband, as _his balance remained unchange_d, and $675,000 and $729,000 to his siblings;

(h) In the year ending 30 June 2023 a debit of approximately $664,000 to the husband and $775,000 and $829,000 to his siblings; and

(i) In the draft of the year ending 30 June 2024 a debit of approximately $964,000 to the husband, and $875,000, and $930,000 to his siblings.

1. The husband's mother was cross-examined as to the contents of the financial statements, including being taken through the financial years 2017 to 2024, identifying an increase in each of the husband and his siblings loan accounts. She agreed that:

(a) She has made financial provisions for all her children by way of BB Pty Ltd;

(b) The increase in the husband's loan account by $100,000 in the year ending 30 June 2023 and by $300,000 in the year ending 30 June 2024 reflected "almost a balancing" of the fact that he did not receive $200,000 as his siblings did in the years ending 30 June 2021 and 30 June 2022;

(c) When looking at the loan accounts she had tried to treat all her children fairly;

(d) None of the loan account balances of any of the three children had ever decreased;

(e) No interest had been recorded in the BB Pty Ltd Statements charged on any of the children's loan accounts; and

(f) No demand has been made by BB Pty Ltd, or she, for repayment of the advances by the husband or either of his siblings.

1. Whilst the failure by the wife to directly challenge the husband's mother's evidence as to the content of the 2014 conversation with the husband may imply acceptance of that evidence and justify findings being made on it (Poricanin v Australian Consolidated Industries Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 419 at 426), there is no obligation to accept it (Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 505 at 505). It is open to find that the evidence not directly challenged is inherently illogical or unreliable, or that it is substantially contradicted by other evidence (Nominal Defendant v Saleh [2011] NSWCA 16 at [140]-[142]). I find that the evidence of the husband's mother as to the 2014 conversation is substantially contradicted, notwithstanding the recording on the published financial statements of BB Pty Ltd of the advance to the husband by way of loan, because:

(a) Of the reasons recorded in [118(a)], [118(d)], [118(e)], [118(g)], [119], and [120].

(b) There was no evidence of either the husband making demands or even requests of his mother for funds on a quarterly basis pursuant to the contended oral agreement, or his mother advising the husband why the instalment payments would be delayed or made in ad hoc amounts.

(c) The provision of an unlimited line of credit to the husband personally stands in stark contrast to the written and executed loan agreements entered with B2 Pty Ltd and B Pty Ltd from 2015 until after separation. Each of these B Pty Ltd or B2 Pty Ltd loans had a commercial character, a specified interest rate, and were the subject of repayment.

1. Additionally, the evidence does not permit a finding to the requisite standard as to the rate of interest payable on the advances, it contended to be "the same way we have always done". There was no evidence as to whether this was a reference to monies provided for the ZZ Street property, monies provided in 2009 from CC Pty Ltd advance to B2 Pty Ltd, monies provided in 2010 advance from CC Pty Ltd to B6 Pty Ltd for the purchase of the AA Property, or otherwise. Interest on the advances is not included as payable in the BB Pty Ltd accounts for the husband or any of his siblings.
2. On a consideration of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the fact and terms of an oral enforceable loan agreement in the terms contended by the husband are established to the requisite degree.
3. In the event this finding is in error, I find that any implied loan agreement for the 2015 to 2020 advances between BB Pty Ltd and the husband can be safely disregarded as a liability of the husband as it is unlikely to be enforced by his mother or BB Pty Ltd or to be called upon for repayment (Biltoft & Biltoft). This finding is supported by:

(a) The absence of evidence that the husband requested each ad hoc sum;

(b) Neither the husband nor his siblings have repaid any of the funds advanced to each as recorded in the published financial statements of BB Pty Ltd from 30 June 2016 to date;

(c) The evidence of the husband's mother there had been somewhat of a truing up between the funds advanced to each of the husband and his siblings by BB Pty Ltd; and

(d) No demand has been made for repayment from the husband or either of his siblings.

1. Item 29A will be excluded as a liability from the balance sheet and will be considered in the contribution findings.

Item 29 - Taxes on the sale of the N Property

1. In Exhibit 28, the single taxation expert, Mr AX, opined as to two alternate values of the capital gains tax ("CGT") payable in the event the N Property was sold, being $782,207 if the value of the property was determined to be that as originally opined by Mr LL at $6.5 million as sought by the wife, or $1,399,082 if the value of the property was to be determined to be $9.125 million as valued by Mr AY as sought by the husband.
2. The two real property expert valuers engaged in a conference pursuant to r 7.31 of the Rules on 3 March 2025. In their joint statement dated 4 March 2025 (Exhibit 39), Mr LL revised his opinion as to the value of the property at $7 million and Mr AY revised his opinion at $8.5 million. The wife accepted, and the parties agreed, to Mr AY's value for the purposes of the trial on the basis that the wife would retain the property in specie. Mr AX did not opine as to the value of any CGT impost on the property at a value of $8.5 million. The evidence does not permit a finding as to the value of this liability.
3. The parties agreed that the wife will achieve CGT roll over relief on the transfer of the property to her in specie from the Family Trust pursuant to a s 79 order. The wife did not adduce any evidence of an intention to sell or dispose of the property in the short to immediate future (Rosati & Rosati (1998) FLC 92-555 ("Rosati & Rosati"). The liability as recorded in the balance sheet will be nil. The CGT impregnated in the property by way of roll over will be taken account in the adjustments to the contribution finding pursuant to s 75(2) of the Act.

Item 31B - Tax on the sale of B2 Pty Ltd shares

1. This item is the combined value opined by Mr AX in Exhibit 28 as to CGT payable at $532,987.05 and Landholder Duty (s 148 Duties Act 1997 (NSW)) payable at $644,548.50 on the disposal by the Family Trust of the B2 Pty Ltd shares to a new discretionary trust established by the husband, the value of the liability on the disposal of the shares being $1,177,536.
2. If the B2 Pty Ltd shares were transferred in specie from the Family Trust to the husband pursuant to a s 79 order, they would attract CGT roll over relief and would be exempt from Landholder Duty.
3. It is agreed that the husband will retain the Family Trust. He did not adduce evidence of any intention of the Family Trust to dispose of the B2 Pty Ltd shares in the short to medium term future (Rosati & Rosati). Item 31B will not be included in the balance sheet. The value of the impregnated CGT in the shares will be taken into account pursuant to s 75(2). It will be a matter for the husband to make a commercial decision in the future as to whether, or why, he may pursue disposal of the shares from the Family Trust to a different trust structure, or to settle the shares on a different trust structure.

1. There is no current proposal to sell the property. No evidence was adduced as to the costs that could be incurred if it was sold. It will be excluded.

1. The parties agree that the value of the AA Property is $2.525 million and that this value has been taken up in the value of Superannuation Fund 1. The orders proposed by each party contemplate a sale by Superannuation Fund 1 of the AA Property. As with Item 31C, no evidence was adduced to ground a finding as to the value of this item. It was not agreed. The value of this item will not be included in the balance sheet. It will be taken into account either by way of s 75(2) in the adjustment to the contribution findings, or within the orders made for Superannuation Fund 1 to sell the AA Property prior to the implementation of a superannuation splitting order.

1. The wife's current ATO income tax statement is Exhibit 6. It records, and I find, that the tax liability currently owing by the wife is $19,639. The wife says the liability was generated on the sale of livestock pursuant to an order. The husband submitted that this liability ought not be in the balance sheet as it is "not a matrimonial debt". His submission is artificial. The husband and the wife's current savings are included as property for adjustment, as is the value of the husband's current BB Pty Ltd debit loan account. Item 32 shall be included at $19,639.

1. The single expert forensic accountant, Ms T, in her report dated 6 February 2025 opined the husband's annual leave at a value of $145,487 due from B Pty Ltd. The value of this liability at $145,487 reduced the value of B Pty Ltd at Item 5. It will be included.

1. No evidence was adduced by either of the parties to ground a finding as to the value of this item. It will not be included.

1. In Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 the High Court observed that it is necessary for me to be satisfied that justice and equity will be achieved as part of the adjustment process pursuant to s 79 of the Act. The requirements identified in the High Court are readily satisfied in this matter having regard to:

(a) The significant financial contributions made over the period of the marriage between the husband and the wife;

(b) The husband and the wife's relationship having broken down and them now living apart;

(c) The concession of each of the husband and the wife as to the necessity of property being adjusted to one another including as to the Suburb W property, the Family Trust, and each party seeking a superannuation split; and

(d) The findings made as to contribution and other factors identified below.

1. Both parties agreed that although they each sought for a superannuation splitting order, a single pool of property was to be used in determining any adjustment of their property.

1. At the time of the marriage the wife directly contributed the Suburb R property purchased in early 2002 for $500,000 subject to a mortgage. It was improved by way of renovations conducted by B Pty Ltd in 2006. It was sold in 2011 for $850,000, and its net proceeds of sale of $554,426 were applied to the purchase of the N Property . The wife also contributed a motor vehicle purchased in 2002 for $37,000, savings of $1,000, and a selection of household contents and personal items. Her pre-marriage superannuation valued at $60,000 in 2011 was rolled into Superannuation Fund 1.
2. At the time of the marriage the husband directly contributed his interest in B7 Pty Ltd. There is merit to his submission that this active trading enterprise was not insubstantial, turning over in the range of $5 million annually (Exhibit 42) with a manufacturing arm and retail outlets. In the first year of the marriage it became B Pty Ltd and that enterprise produced significant income for the parties throughout their marriage.
3. The husband's contribution of his superannuation entitlements of $113,817 at the time of the marriage had accumulated to $462,000 when it was rolled into Superannuation Fund 1 in 2011.
4. The husband's initial contribution of the ZZ Street property, subject to a mortgage in favour of the ANZ, was described by him in submissions as the "goose that laid the golden egg" launching the current wealth of the parties. I find that the direct financial contributions of the husband at the commencement of cohabitation were substantially superior to those of the wife. The Full Court in Pierce v Pierce [1998] FamCA 74; (1999) FLC 92-844 directed that the weight such direct initial financial contributions attract is determined when regard is had to the use made of those contributions. I find that the husband's direct initial financial contributions enabled:

(a) The use of the ZZ Street property as security for purchase of the Town AK property, the AA Property, the 1 AG Street property, the N Property, and borrowings to fund the operations and growth of B Pty Ltd; and

(b) The husband to receive $5 million upon its sale in 2018 to B2 Pty Ltd, used to fund the acquisition of the Suburb W property, now valued at $14.5 million. When B2 Pty Ltd sold the ZZ Street property in 2020 it achieved a gain of $750,000 that was applied to retire debt.

1. There is merit to the husband's submission that the wealth accumulated by the parties hinged not only from the use made of his initial contributions but also from the financial support made available from his parents, including significant advances being provided when requested to the B Group and to B2 Pty Ltd for the purpose of the construction of the Suburb J property.
2. Further, the husband's parents, both personally and by way of BB Pty Ltd, provided financial support to the husband personally, including with flexibility as to access and as to the terms of such agreements. The fact and value of the advances to the husband by BB Pty Ltd from 2015 to 2020 of $575,000 were applied to build the wealth of the parties, attracting weight.
3. A significant volume of the affidavit evidence of the parties and their evidence in cross-examination focused on the fact and character of the other's financial, non-financial, homemaking, and parenting contributions by way of their personal exertions made to the marital relationship, emphasising their own and minimising the others. There was extensive dispute as to who undertook the maintenance of their home and rural properties.
4. In his Case Outline the husband submitted "[a]lthough both parties were in paid employment during the relationship, the Husband was the primary income earner and the parties' wealth derives predominantly or entirely from his efforts and in particular in the development, expansion and operation of the core business which the Husband had established and brought into the marriage". In cross-examination the husband initially gave evidence that he was responsible for the entirety of the parties' expenses during the marriage. His case diminished the income earning role of the wife and her application of income for the benefit of the family. He disagreed that the parties were operating as a partnership during the marriage. He additionally contended that each party cared for X, the wife returning to paid employment after his birth, with the parties employing au pairs, his case implicitly promoting equal contributions of this character.
5. The wife said that from 2013 to 2015 the husband frequently travelled to Western Australia for his work commitments, those trips often being for weeks at a time, and that during those weeks, she was the sole carer of X. The husband said he travelled to Western Australia for work on occasions and travelled extensively over a period of six months in 2014.

(a) Between 2005 to 2007, a senior at AZ Limited;

(b) In 2006, a contracted consultant by BA Group;

(c) Between 2007 to 2008, a contracted consultant by BC Limited;

(d) Between 2012 and 2013, a contracted consultant by BD Company; and

(e) Since mid-2019, an independent Director of P Company.

1. I find that the wife made indirect contributions to the repayment of the ANZ loan used to fund the AO Venue investment and to the payment of the legal fees for that litigation.
2. Both the husband and the wife agreed that they had been assisted in the caretaking of X and with domestic tasks using au pairs, who were in exchange provided accommodation. In cross-examination the wife initially denied that they were employed on a commercial basis, and then later said that a couple were given "pocket money".
3. In cross-examination the husband conceded that the wife had paid for household expenses and school fees during the marriage and agreed that, as between the parties, she was the primary carer of X. Later in his cross-examination the husband acknowledged both he and the wife worked hard in their respective roles in the marriage dynamic.
4. I find that the dynamic implemented by the parties during the marriage was such that both the husband and the wife worked hard in their respective spheres, both working outside of the home and contributing to tasks inside of the home such as work on the rural property, administrative work, domestic tasks, and taking care of X.
5. In final submissions the husband sought a finding that he and the wife equally contributed during the period of cohabitation and after separation up to trial having regard to their respective spheres within the marriage dynamic. He said his contended contribution finding as to 60 per cent in his favour was promoted by weighing his initial contributions at the date of the marriage and the use made of them, by way of the fact and use of the $575,000 advanced to him by BB Pty Ltd from August 2015 to April 2020, and by way of what he described as "funds available to the [B Group]" with ease of accessibility and being available on request.
6. The wife agreed that the direct contributions of the husband exceed those she made at the time of the marriage. The wife submitted that she and the husband equally contributed financially and non-financially during the period of cohabitation up until separation, and that post separation, contributions weighed in her favour.
7. At separation the wife vacated the Suburb W property. She and X thereafter resided in rental accommodation. The husband remained in occupation of the Suburb W property up until the time of trial.

The issue as to the conduct of the Family Trust

1. Significant dispute emerged after separation between the parties as to the accounting and compliance work for the Family Trust's farming operations for the period from 2014 until separation. It remained a focal point generating malevolence.
2. The husband's evidence was that prior to the acquisition of the N Property by the Family Trust, an accountant prepared the annual published financial records for the Family Trust and submitted tax and other revenue returns, the wife providing the information to the accountant. The husband's case is that from March 2014 the wife had the sole responsibility for managing the financial records of the Family Trust and providing instructions to different accountants from the accountants who prepared the financial statements from 2005 to 2013, while he undertook the management of the operations of the N Property, employing a farm manager. In cross-examination the husband agreed that he sent invoices to wife for the Family Trust to pay for items that he had acquired and that B Pty Ltd had acquired.
3. The wife contended that they undertook this work jointly. I do not accept that evidence. In paragraph 218 of her affidavit sealed on 14 December 2020 (Exhibit 8), the wife said that she was "primarily responsible for the administration tasks associated with the farm properties", including "[a]dministration and causing payment of all suppliers on each of our farms since the purchase of the [B6 Pty Ltd] property in 2005" and "[c]ollating receipts for the BAS preparation and coordinating of the preparation and lodgement of activity statements by bookkeepers since the purchase of the [B6 Pty Ltd] property in 2005". I find that, as between the parties, the wife undertook the administrative work for the Family Trust at least from 2014.
4. After separation the husband instructed AQ Financial Services chartered accountants to review the financial statements of the Family Trust after he had "gone over" the bank statements for the trust and its general ledgers, identifying what he described as "concerns regarding the veracity" of those documents. At the initial time of review, the husband did not have the source documents grounding the summaries recorded in the general ledgers. He progressed his instructions to AQ Financial Services to report as to what he described as irregularities in the recording of the income and expenses of the trust and the purchase and sale of assets of the trust such as livestock. He received reports dated 29 June 2021 and March 2022. The wife disputed the conclusions contained in the reports. She said accountants had prepared the published financial statements and revenue returns for the Family Trust from 2014. Her case was that the husband commissioned the reports as part of a "prolonged course of conduct which has involved threats and intimidation" of her.

1. The wife's contentions as to the impact of the husband's conduct during the relationship and prior to separation on her capacity to make contributions was abandoned. By the end of the trial, her contention, as identified in Kennon, was limited to the post-separation conduct of the husband making her contributions more arduous than they ought to have been, to be taken into account in assessing the parties' respective contributions up to trial.
2. The conduct focused on:

(a) The husband failing to respond to the wife's attempts to organise parenting arrangements for X from separation to the making of final parenting orders on 23 May 2024 including cancelling arrangements with X at short notice, not spending time with X for extended periods during school holidays, refusing to consent to X seeing a psychologist, sending intimidating text messages, and making Police complaints;

(b) Mischievous whistleblower allegations to her employer, P Company;

(c) Making "tip off" notifications to the ATO;

(d) Making complaints to the Legal Services Commissioner about her former lawyers; and

(e) Making complaints to the ATO about her former accountant.

1. The husband confirmed that he did not advance any Kennon contention as to the wife's conduct.
2. The wife said the husband did not cooperate in the parenting of X, such that her parenting contributions were made more arduous than the ought to have been. The husband says that the wife did not allow him to have time with X. Notwithstanding the lengthy trial before Justice Berman as to parenting, the parties advised that no findings were made as to these subject matters. The testing of each party's evidence on this subject matter at this trial was abridged. Whilst I find that much of the post-separation parenting disputes between the parties were a function of the unabating conflict between them, the absence of a scintilla of trust and confidence between them, and their blinkered pursuit of their respective views, I am unable to make a finding as to whether the husband elected not to spend time with X until that issue was the subject of orders to create difficulties for the wife or the wife refused to let him spend time with X. Additionally, the wife conceded in cross-examination that since the making of final parenting orders, conflict around the husband's time spent with X has "settled down".
3. In cross-examination the husband was taken to a text message which he had sent the wife on 7 July 2020 in which he said that the wife would end up with "no career in [her industry]" due to the information they would each provide their legal representatives in this litigation. The husband responded that he could "appreciate" that such a text may make the wife feel threatened by him, or make her career feel threatened.
4. In mid-2020 an incident occurred in which the husband alleges that the wife assaulted him at X's sports game. The wife was arrested that day in front of X. Subsequently, the wife was charged and an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order ("ADVO") was issued. In early 2021 the assault charge against the wife was dismissed after a hearing. The wife entered a final ADVO restraining her for two years on a "without admissions" basis. In cross-examination, the wife conceded that both she and the husband "behaved badly" at that incident.
5. In late 2020, two days after the alleged assault, the husband contacted the police and alleged that the wife had stolen money from the sale of animals. In cross-examination it was put to the husband that the animals were sold, that they were the livestock of the Family Trust, and that both he and the wife "owned" the Family Trust, hence the wife could not "steal" something that she and the husband owned. The husband's response was evasive, saying that he received an email that he and the wife agreed "not to sell anything". I find that the husband knew, or ought to have known, that the sale of animals and the use of those proceeds were not a matter for the police. I find that the husband's complaint to the police was petty and malicious, being designed to intimidate and harass the wife.

1. Each party confirmed that a holistic approach ought to be adopted as to the assessment of the myriads of contributions over the period of cohabitation and after separation up until the hearing (Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25). A holistic assessment requires all contributions to be weighed collectively and not by way of compartmentalising one against others or the remainder. I am mindful that there can be an overstated importance as to the increase in the value of a piece of property at the expense of the myriads of other contributions that each of the parties has made during the relationship.
2. Considering all the contributions identified in these reasons, contributions are assessed as to 57 per cent in favour of the husband and 43 per cent in favour of the wife. This will see a disparity between the parties in dollar terms that equates to $17,546,453 to the husband and $13,236,798 to the wife, a difference of $4,309,656.

SECTION 75(2) - ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONTRIBUTION FINDING

1. The husband is aged 60. The wife is aged 52. The husband said that he is in poor physical health, but he did not contend that he could not engage in full time employment. The wife says that she is in good health. On the husband's own evidence, as the litigation is concluding, he ought to be able to return to his pre-separation full time role as a director of the B Group.
2. Exhibit 36 records that from 2017 until 2020 the husband's annual taxable income was in the range of $770,000 to $985,000. He submitted that he does not expect that the B Group will be able to provide in the future with the same level of income "as it historically did", submitting that the ch 7 single report of Ms T dated February 2025 records declining profits and hence a reduction in his ability to draw monies from the companies. I do not accept such a contention because:

(a) While the report of Ms T records a decline in the B Group's trading performance after the conclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the 2024 year the Group had commenced recovery. Sales revenue and profit margins improved in 2024 to the extent that it achieved an adjusted EBITDA of $852,672 after an adjustment of the husband's remuneration by increasing his salary to $185,000, making it consistent with his average remuneration for 2022 and 2023. The expert recorded that the 2024 remuneration paid to directors was "more than offset by the inter-entity management fees of $671,103 received from [B3 Pty Ltd] from the time spent by the directors assisting that satellite entity". The expert also opined that the husband borrowed another $240,000 in 2024 by way of his director's loan. It was not suggested that this impacted on the cash flow requirements of the enterprise.

(b) The B Group had been able to pay Mr AD a substantial wage and a significant dividend in the time that the husband has not drawn a wage, and the husband has continued to draw on his loan account.

(c) Exhibit 18 is the ANZ credit assessment as to the future earnings of B Pty Ltd signed by the husband and Mr AD. It records that they did not foresee any funding requirements in the next 12 months and there were no hurdles to B Pty Ltd's business continuing to operate.

(d) The B Group, by way of B2 Pty Ltd, is indebted to the husband's mother and BB Pty Ltd by way of a 10-year term loan requiring repayment by April 2032. The husband's evidence was that the current amount due on this loan is $1.775 million, and the loan is being retired at an accelerated rate over $1.2 million annually, or $105,000 per month, such that it will be extinguished within 15 months, implicitly not adversely impacting on cash flow.

1. In 2019 the wife obtained qualification to achieve certification in her profession. In late 2024 she completed a qualification to practice in another field. In 2021 she undertook a program in the not-for-profit sector, and another course in a different sector.
2. I accept the husband's submission that the wife has had the opportunity to improve her work experience and qualifications during the marriage and that she has been able to cultivate a range of experience, skills, and connections. The wife has a good foundation to progress her career going forward.
3. The wife currently receives $2,897 each week in wages from her role at P Company (being approximately $150,000 per annum), $1,155 each week in distributions from the Family Trust (approximately $60,000 per annum), and child support of $218 each week pursuant to the orders of 23 May 2024. She additionally has a small number of consulting clients in respect of which she has received a total of $31,937 since 15 August 2023.
4. In her affidavit the wife set out the attempts she has made to obtain more comprehensive and stable employment, some of which have been successful and others which have not. I accept the evidence of the wife that she has been attempting to acquire further gainful employment and that she will be able to work full-time in the future. I accept the wife's evidence, and I find, that P Company is currently undergoing a process of merger awaiting regulatory approval, and that, subject to that approval and membership approval, she may achieve a full-time. That role, if achieved, will carry with it more responsibility and require more of her time. She hopes her remuneration will increase. I find that the remuneration of that role, if achieved, will be determined by way of a voting process by the members of the corporation.
5. I find that the husbands' current income and his future income earning capacity is superior to that of the wife.
6. By way of the contribution finding the property of the husband is superior to that of the wife.
7. The husband has had a significant financial resource by way of the financial support and largess of his parents for many years. The husband's evidence is that his mother has told him, and he expects, that it is reasonably expected to continue in the future as and when he seeks to call on it (Hall v Hall ; The husband's case was that he cannot retain the Suburb W property by way of his own income, property, and resources, however, also seeks to retain that property. He expects his mother will assist him to do so, including to make at least part of any cash adjusting payment to the wife. He has a financial resource by way of his annual leave at $145,487 and carried forward capital losses of $551,195 (Exhibit 19).

1. Accordingly, the property of the parties will be adjusted 45.5 per cent to the wife and 54.5 per cent to the husband, a difference of $2,770,493.
2. The parties each seek nuanced orders in the adjustment of their property. After four and a half years of litigation, incurring combined legal costs of more than $3.45 million and the current five-day trial event, with the benefit of experienced senior and King's counsel and accredited solicitors, the husband and the wife were requested to provide a joint proposed minute of the orders sought by each in Exhibits 43 and 48 that were agreed, with a common set of definitions. That request could not, being emblematic of the litigation, be fulfilled.
3. Section 79 proceedings require the form of orders adjusting property to be just and equitable. If the parties fail to promote their obligations as litigants pursuant to s 96 of the Act, and for the period up to amendment to the legislation, s 68 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), the mandate to achieve justice and equity must be achieved doing the best as can be done on the available evidence and within the parameters the parties present. When crafting orders adjusting the property of these parties, it is necessary, in so far as is possible, to obviate any requirement for them to achieve consensus or constructively implement the progression of orders, as it is not expected that either will adopt a commercial approach or be sensitive of the other.
4. The husband and the wife agree that:

(a) The wife will retain the N Property in specie at a value of $8.5 million and the plant, equipment, livestock and agricultural product recorded in the accounts of the Family Trust, the husband being enabled to retain and retrieve at least the property of the B Group from the N Property ;

(b) B6 Pty Ltd will be removed as the trustee of the Family Trust and a new trustee appointed, with the husband to retain the Family Trust, including receiving the wife's credit loan account, but excluding N Property and the trusts plant, equipment, livestock and agricultural product;

(c) B6 Pty Ltd in its capacity as trustee of Superannuation Fund 1 will sell AA Property. Both agree that a superannuation splitting order be made in favour of the wife from the husband's member entitlement in Superannuation Fund 1. They do not agree as to the value of the superannuation split, or the date from which it will operate. On the occurrence of specified events, the husband will transfer his interest in B6 Pty Ltd to the wife; and

(d) The wife will transfer her interest in the Suburb W property to the husband upon the husband paying to the wife a capital sum. In the event of default as to payment, the Suburb W property will be sold.

1. The husband says that he seeks to maximise the value of superannuation adjusted to the wife to reduce the value of the capital payment he will make to her to retain the Suburb W property. He seeks a superannuation splitting order to the wife for 100 per cent of his member entitlement in Superannuation Fund 1 with the splittable payment to be made 10 days after service of a copy of any order on the trustee of the fund. The construction of his order requires the superannuation split to occur prior to the sale of the AA Property. He seeks that upon implementation of the sale of the AA Property , for the wife to roll out her adjusted member entitlement from the fund and for the SMSF structure to vest and be deregistered.
2. The wife opposes the superannuation splitting order sought by the husband. She seeks to retain the Superannuation Fund 1 structure. She seeks that a superannuation splitting order operate after the completion of the sale of the AA Property in her favour from the husband's member entitlement in the SMSF by a base amount of $817,887.
3. The value of the husband's interest in Superannuation Fund 1 is $2,090,282. The value of the wife's interest is $454,508. The total value of the fund is $2,544,790. That value included an agreed value of the AA Property at $2.525 million. The wife's current entitlement is about 18 per cent of the value of the fund. As is self-evident, the AA Property comprises close to the entire value of the assets of Superannuation Fund 1. The parties included in the balance sheet, at Item 31A, the agreed CGT payable by Superannuation Fund 1 if AA Property was sold at $2.525 million, being $185,279.
4. The wife's objective is to equalise the current member entitlements of she and the husband in Superannuation Fund 1, illustrated as follows:

The combined member benefits of the parties in the SMSF is $2,544,790.

50 per cent or half of that value is $1,272,395.

The value of the wife's current member entitlement is $454,508 plus a split payment of $817,887 = $1,272,395.

1. If the superannuation splitting orders as sought by the husband were made, the wife's post-split member entitlement value would be the value of the fund at $2,544,790. The AA Property would be sold. The wife alone would receive the benefit or burden in a rise or fall in the value achieved on the AA Property disposal by Superannuation Fund 1. Additionally, the value of the CGT payable by Superannuation Fund 1 from the sale of the AA Property (currently at $185,279 if sold for $2.525 million) would be solely borne by the wife's member entitlement, reducing the value of her member entitlement (to $2,359,511), less the unknown costs of real estate agents costs and conveyancing costs on Superannuation Fund 1 disposing of the AA Property.
2. If the superannuation splitting orders as sought by the wife were made, the value of the member entitlements of each of the husband and the wife in Superannuation Fund 1 would not be the subject of a splitting order until after the completion of the AA Property disposal. The superannuation splitting order would operate at that time applying a base amount. That chronology also may not equitably accommodate the possible rise or fall in the sale price achieved on the disposal of the AA Property and would present challenges in equitably adjusting the agreed value of the taxation impost incurred in the fund on that disposal.
3. I find that each party retaining significant superannuation entitlements in Superannuation Fund 1 by adjusting their member entitlements pursuant to a superannuation splitting order equalising their member entitlements in the fund being made 10 days after the making of orders achieves justice and equity between the husband and the wife, having regard to:

(a) The fact that the husband is 60 years old and closer to achieving an age where he can exercise those entitlements. The wife is 52 years old and unable to access her superannuation entitlements for some time.

(b) The superannuation splitting order sought by the husband would lock up substantive property of the wife, being at this time the value of the fund at $2,544,790 less CGT and selling costs, in a form of property that cannot be utilised by her in a cash form. By comparison, the property adjustment proposed by the husband's orders do not carry such impediment. He can elect to liquidate his property to generate cash as and when he determines. The husband will retain the primary income producing property of the parties. He has a higher income earning capacity and superior financial resources.

(c) The wife requires available cash now to pay her substantial loans for legal fees to litigation funders. She ought to have remaining cash after that payment from any adjusting sum to accommodate the vicissitudes of life, so as to avoid being cash flow deprived.

(d) The construction of the orders sought by the husband would saddle the wife with all the CGT payable on the sale of the AA Property, absent submission as to why that circumstance would achieve justice and equity between the parties.

(e) The oral evidence of the ch 7 real property valuation expert Mr LL identifies the possibility of delay in achieving the disposal of rural properties around the AA Property for a period of up to 12 months or greater, in turn delaying by way of the wife's proposed orders implementation of any superannuation splitting order.

(f) History is indicative that delay in adjusting the property of these parties is likely to lead to further disputes between them. By way of comparison, a 10-day period for the operative time implementing the superannuation splitting order ensures that each party will equally receive the benefit or burden of any rise or fall in the disposal value of the property and any adjustment to the value of their member entitlements from the CGT impost and other sale costs incurred by Superannuation Fund 1 on the sale of the AA Property. Each party will be equally invested in achieving the maximum value for the sale of the AA Property, tempered by a balanced engagement of the parties in the mechanical orders regulating the terms of the sale of the AA Property within specified time frames.

1. A superannuation splitting order will be made in the base amount of $817,887 in favour of the wife from the husband's member entitlement in Superannuation Fund 1 to operate 10 days after service on the order on the trustee, B6 Pty Ltd. As the superannuation splitting order will operate within 10 days, the utility as to orders as to each party making binding death nominations evaporates.
2. The wife proposed that she alone appoint the real estate agent and the solicitor to act on the sale of the AA Property, that it be listed for sale by expressions of interest or private treaty in the first instance at a reserve price of $2.3 million, and, if not sold, to be sold by a series of auctions ratcheting down the reserve price to $2.25 million, $2 million, and thereafter $1.9 million. The husband proposed that in the event the parties failed to agree as to the identity of a listing agent or solicitor to act on behalf of Superannuation Fund 1 on the sale of the AA Property, default orders be made for regulatory bodies to nominate an agent or solicitor. He also sought that the property be sold by expression of interest with an alternative by way of an online auction, and if it was not sold, to ratchet down the reserve price in the same terms and for the same reserve prices as the wife, but at different spacings of time between the auctions. He did not agree to the initial reserve price at $2.3 million but did not provide an alternate price sought. Both parties agreed that the proceeds of sale be deposited into the accounts of Superannuation Fund 1.
3. The orders sought by the each of the husband and the wife regulating the mechanics of the sale of the AA Property will be varied so that one party does not achieve an advantage over the other in the process of disposal of the property. An order will be made for the initial reserve price to be that as agreed by the parties in writing, and failing agreement at $2.525 million, being a value the parties agreed to for the purposes of the balance sheet. An order will be made for the Superannuation Fund 1 accountant to prepare, at the cost of the fund, special purpose accounts to record the implementation of the splitting order within 21 days from the date of these orders.
4. Each party now has the benefit of their own SMSF established post-separation. They each have the capacity to roll out their split and equalised superannuation interests in Superannuation Fund 1 as will be adjusted by the completion of the sale of the AA Property. Notwithstanding the wife will retain the fund trustee, B6 Pty Ltd, the continuation of the fund may be fertile ground for future disputes between them. The interests of the parties are best promoted by each party rolling their superannuation interest out of the fund after the sale of the AA Property has been completed and the fund vesting and being deregistered at the cost of the fund. Such order will be made.

50 per cent of the tax on the sale of the AA Property

1. The wife accordingly holds $10,281,280. She ought to hold $14,006,379. She therefore requires a payment from the husband of $3,725,099 to achieve 45.5 per cent of the property of the parties.
2. The husband's overall entitlement to 54.5 per cent of the property of the parties identified in the balance sheet equates to $16,776,872.
3. The husband currently has in his possession or will receive the following:

Mr Sartre & Ms Henschel Family Trust (including the B2 Pty Ltd shares) less the value of the N Property ($7,787,487 - $8,500,000)

Wife's Loan account Mr Sartre & Ms Henschel Family Trust

50 per cent of the tax on the sale of the AA Property

1. The husband accordingly will hold $20,501,971. He ought to hold $16,776,872. Hence, he will pay to the wife $3,725,099.
2. The wife sought the capital sum payable by the husband be made within three months of the date of orders made and delivery of these reasons. The husband proposed it be paid to the wife within three months from the date of settlement of the AA Property. The husband's orders, aside from the possible delay in the period to sell the AA Property, result in him having the benefit the income producing property of the parties by way of B Pty Ltd, the continued use of the most valuable item of property, the Suburb W property, and his superior financial resources, pending the wife receiving her adjusted property by way of the cash adjustment. By way of contrast, until the sale of AA Property, the wife will have the benefit of the N Property, but scarce other liquid assets. The husband was aware that the wife sought payment of a greater cash adjusting sum than determined. He did not adduce evidence as to any limitation posed for him to access sufficient monies to pay the determined cash adjustment within three months of the date of any orders, notwithstanding his opportunity to do so. His evidence is that he expects his mother will assist him in making such payment. It is just and equitable that the property of the parties be adjusted and distributed as soon as is reasonably practicable. An order will be made for the husband to pay the cash adjustment to the wife within three months from the date hereof.
3. In default of payment of the capital sum the parties could not agree as to the mechanics of the orders regulating the sale of the Suburb W property. The husband proposed to appoint the agent and solicitor acting on the sale. The wife proposed that the parties agree as to them, or failing agreement, for specific agents and solicitors to be appointed. No submissions were made as to why one course ought to be adopted rather than the other. In the event the parties are unable to agree, default orders will be made for regulatory bodies to nominate an agent or solicitor. While the parties agreed that the Suburb W property be sold by public auction and if passed in, listed for private treaty for four weeks, and if unsold during that period, it thereafter be listed for a further auction, they could not agree on some finer details of those processes. Orders will be made broadly in terms of that methodology but refined to reduce the opportunity for further disputes.

5.4 In the event that the husband defaulted in the payment of the capital sum, or any part thereof, a payment to the Wife of such outstanding amount in respect of the capital sum;

5.5 In payment to the wife of 50% of the amount by which the gross sale price of [Suburb W] exceeds the sum of $14.5 million (if applicable);

5.6 The remaining balance shall be paid to the Husband.

1. The husband sought for the proceeds of sale on default of the Suburb W property, after selling expenses and payment of ANZ mortgages and loans, to be applied to pay the determined adjusting sum as ordered to the wife, and for he to retain the remaining balance.
2. The wife's orders embrace the possibility of sharing in any increase in the value of the Suburb W property from that agreed at the time of trial to that achieved in the future on a default sale, but do not reciprocate by sharing the reduction in value if it is sold on default for less than the agreed value at the time of trial. The husband's orders promote the wife receiving the fixed value of her cash adjusting sum. Neither proposed order was the subject of submissions. Neither achieves justice and equity. The value of the Suburb W property is $14.5 million, less ANZ loan ...32 at $2,936,462, equalling an equity of $11,564,538 (the value of ANZ loan ...56 secured on the Suburb W property is not a balance sheet item, it being taken up in the value of the Family Trust). The value of the cash adjusting sum to the wife is $3,725,099, being 32.2 per cent of that equity. Orders will be made that the proceeds of any default sale of the Suburb W property, after payment of outstanding costs and agreed expenses of the sale including legal costs and disbursements, agents commission, advertising expenses, auction expenses and any adjustments due to the purchaser, reimbursement to the husband of such agreed costs of sale as have been paid by him, and payment of the ANZ mortgage ...32, be distributed as to 32.2 per cent to the wife and the balance to the husband (Noetel and Quealey [2005] FamCAFC 677; (2005) FLC 93-230).
3. The parties agreed to an order for the wife to have exclusive occupancy of the N Property and for she to be solely entitled to conduct the day-to-day agricultural activities in the ordinary business of the Family Trust including in respect of the management of livestock at the N Property. Such an order will be made. The husband sought that, pending the sale of the Suburb W property, he meets, as and when they fall due, all mortgage instalments, statutory charges and outgoings and indemnify the wife in relation to the same. Such order will be made.

14.1 The removal of items shall be undertaken in the period commencing 14 days after these Orders and ending 56 days after these Orders;

14.2 The Husband shall at no time enter or attempt to enter the [N Property] and he is restrained accordingly;

14.3 The Husband shall provide the Wife with no less than 48 hours notice of his intention to attend [N Property] on each occasion;

14.4 The Husband shall undertake the removal of the items in a workman-like manner and shall not damage the property and improvements located upon [N Property];

14.5 The Husband shall be at liberty to appoint delegates, contractors and agents to attend [N Property] on this behalf within the terms of these Orders.

1.4 ... the Wife shall grant access to the Husband to remove the Husband's [all designated items at N Property], such access to be on the following terms:-

1.4.1 The removal of items shall be undertaken in the period commencing 14 days after these Orders and ending 8 weeks thereafter;

1.4.2 The Husband shall at no time enter or attempt to enter the homestead of [N Property] and he is restrained accordingly;

1.4.3 The Husband shall provide the Wife with no less than 24 hours notice of his intention to attend [N Property] on each occasion;

1.4.4 The Husband shall be at liberty to appoint delegates, contractors and agents to attend [N Property] on this behalf within the terms of these Orders.

1. Exhibit 48, being the husband's minute of final orders sought, contained a definition as to the 23 items of property which he said formed "the Husband's [N Property] ". Those definitions did not differentiate between that property owned by B Pty Ltd, B2 Pty Ltd, B3 Pty Ltd, B4 Pty Ltd, B5 Pty Ltd, and B7 Pty Ltd with that property owned by the husband personally. Enquiries made in submissions as to the evidence identifying the items of property falling within the husband's definition in Exhibit 48 was the subject of a somewhat cryptic response. The husband's affidavit said that B Pty Ltd had several full shipping containers of company inventory and other items on the property (at paragraph 283). That does not account for the 23 items of property sought to be included by Exhibit 48. An order will be made as sought by the wife to allow the removal of property of B Pty Ltd, B2 Pty Ltd, B3 Pty Ltd, B4 Pty Ltd, B5 Pty Ltd, and B7 Pty Ltd. No submission was made as to why an order ought not be made, having regard to the history recorded earlier in these reasons, that the husband undertake the removal of the items in a workman-like manner and not damage the property and improvements located upon the N Property. Such order will be made.
2. The husband sought to give the wife 24 hours' notice of his intention to attend the N Property for the purposes of the removal of the items. The wife sought to be given 48 hours' notice. Having regard to the extended history of interlocutory disputes as to the husband attending the N Property, 48 hours' notice as sought by the wife will allow her adequate time to prepare and make any arrangements as may be required for the attendance by or on behalf of the husband.
3. Each of the husband and wife sought orders to regulate, as between them, from the time of the making of final orders, financial responsibility for future possible liabilities arising from the historic revenue and taxation reporting responsibilities of the Family Trust. This echoed from the husband obtaining the AQ Financial Services reports and then from the opinions expressed by Ms T as the single forensic accounting expert on the "expanded scope of work" as to contended irregularities in the published financial statements of the Family Trust up to 2022. The wife sought a form of anti-suit injunctive order and indemnity from the husband. The husband sought an indemnity from the wife from the date of inception of the Family Trust to the date of the orders "if any issue ever arises in respect of the Australian Taxation Office". In cross-examination the wife expressed a concern as to the husband attempting to continue the conflict between them by way of progressing his complaints as to the historic revenue reporting of the Family Trust accounts. She said she wants to "draw a line" under the matter.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and thirty-nine (239) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton.