Gronow & Gronow [2026] FedCFamC2F 107 (9 February 2026)

(a) her dog, B;

(b) the jewellery currently in her possession;

(c) all household contents in her possession, subject to Order 27;

(d) funds held to her credit in any bank, credit union or savings account;

(e) annual leave and/or long service leave entitlements; and

(f) any superannuation to which she is entitled, subject to these Orders.

1. Save as otherwise provided for in these Orders, the Respondent Husband shall be entitled, to the exclusion of the Applicant Wife, to all other property, chattels and resources of whatsoever nature and kind in his possession or in respect of which the Respondent Husband has an actual beneficial and/or contingent interest as at the date of the Orders including, but not limited to:

(a) his unregistered Motor Vehicle 1;

(b) his unregistered Motor Vehicle 1;

(c) gold and silver bullion;

(d) the jewellery currently in his possession;

(e) all household contents in his possession;

(f) funds held to his credit in any bank, credit union or savings account;

(g) annual leave and/or long service leave entitlements; and

(h) any superannuation to which he is entitled.

1. The Applicant Wife shall indemnify the Respondent Husband and hold him indemnified in relation to any and all liabilities of the Applicant Wife from the date of these Orders including, but not limited to, any personal liability, tax liability, capital gains tax and credit card debts existing at the date of these Orders and in the future, save for as is otherwise provided for in these Orders.
2. The Respondent Husband shall indemnify the Applicant Wife and hold her indemnified in relation to any and all liabilities of the Respondent Husband from the date of these Orders including, but not limited to, any personal liability, tax liability, capital gains tax and credit card debts existing at the date of these Orders and in the future, save for as is otherwise provided for in these Orders.
3. The Respondent Husband shall retain his interest in the business trading as C Business including all tools of trade, free from any claim of the Applicant Wife and shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Applicant Wife in regards to any liabilities related to these entities.
4. From the date of these Orders and unless otherwise specified in these Orders, and except for the purposes of enforcing payment of any money due under this or any other subsequent Order, the parties have the sole right, title and interest in any other property which is at the date of these Orders in their possession, title or name.

1. Within 30 days of the date of these Orders, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to transfer the registration of Motor Vehicle 3 from joint names into the Respondent Husband's sole name, at the Respondent Husband's cost.
2. Within 30 days of the date of these Orders, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to transfer the registration of Motor Vehicle 4 from the Applicant Wife's name to the Respondent Husband's sole name, at the Respondent Husband's cost.
3. Within 30 days of the date of these Orders, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to transfer the registration of the trailer from the Applicant Wife's name to the Respondent Husband's sole name, at the Respondent Husband's cost.

1. Within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the parties will do all acts and sign all things necessary to authorise Best Wilson Buckley Family Law to release the remaining jointly held sale proceeds to the Applicant Wife, by way of a transfer to the trust account of Best Wilson Buckley Family Law.

1. The parties shall do all acts and things to effect a sale of the 1 F Street property, and by way of consequential arrangements that shall be made for the purposes of effecting a sale:

(a) The Applicant Wife be the Trustee and have the property listed for sale forthwith;

(b) In the event the Respondent Husband fails to provide any executed document required in relation to the sale within seven (7) days of receipt of same, the Trustee for sale is permitted to sign on behalf of both parties;

(c) The real property shall be listed for sale by private treaty with J Real Estate, Suburb G, and in the event this is required to be changed for any reason, the Trustee for sale will nominate an agent to facilitate the sale;

(d) The real property shall be listed at a price as nominated by the Trustee for sale;

(e) The marketing of the property sale will be arranged in conjunction with the Trustee for sale, and any funds expended for this will prior to settlement be reimbursed to the party that has expended the cost initially;

(f) A copy of these Orders are to be provided to the listing agent, and any offers are to be provided to both the Trustee and Respondent Husband at the same time;

(g) The Trustee for sale shall accept any offer to purchase the property that is within 98% of the listing price and shall sign all such documents to effect such sale within forty eight (48) hours of being requested by the real estate agent to do so;

(h) In the event that the 1 F Street property has not been sold within three (3) months of the listing date, then the Applicant Wife and Respondent Husband must sign all documents and do all acts and things necessary to have the property sold at public auction, as follows:

(i) The auctioneer will be nominated by the Trustee for sale;

(ii) The reserve price will be nominated by the Trustee for sale; and

(iii) The party who funds the payment of the auction expenses and will be reimbursed at the time of sale.

(i) In the event that the 1 F Street property is not sold by auction or by private negotiation within two (2) months after the auction, then the Trustee and Respondent Husband will do all acts and sign all necessary documents to procure a second auction within a further three (3) months of that date with the same terms as above and continue to auction the property pursuant to these Orders until such time as it is sold.

1. Upon completion of the sale, the proceeds are to be applied in the following manner and priority:

(a) To pay the real estate costs and commissions, including marketing and advertising fees, and loan finalisation fees or any other penalties;

(b) To pay the legal costs and outlays relating to the sale;

(c) To discharge the mortgage and any other encumbrances affecting the 1 F Street property; and

(d) To reimburse either party for any out of pocket costs and expenses arising or necessary to ensure the property was in a condition for sale, as recommended by the real estate agent.

(e) The sum of $30,000 to be paid into the trust account of Best Wilson Buckley Family Law and held on trust for the parties in addition to the sum already held in accordance with the Orders dated 15 October 2024 to be applied towards the costs and expenses identified in Order 25.

(f) The net balance to be divided in such proportion as to effect a 73%/27% division of the net property pool (including superannuation) in favour of the Applicant Wife, having regard to the assets to be retained by the parties in accordance with the reasons for judgment.

(g) With any sum payable to the Applicant Wife pursuant to Orders 17 and 23, to be paid from the Respondent Husband's share of the sale proceeds prior to distributing the funds to the Respondent Husband.

1. From the date of these Orders, the Applicant Wife and Respondent Husband are hereby restrained from removing any funds from the rent account held for 1 F Street (Commonwealth Bank of Australia account ending #...91), unless the funds are being utilised to meet the joint expenses pursuant to Order 13 of the Orders dated 30 April 2024.
2. This Order acts as an Authority for the Applicant Wife to release a copy of these Orders to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and request that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia limit the Respondent Husband's access to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia account ending #...91, to the extent that he is unable to draw down any funds available, without the prior written authority from the Applicant Wife.
3. From the date of these Orders, the Applicant Wife and Respondent Husband are hereby restrained from instructing the Real Estate Agent managing the 1 F Street property from:

(a) Re-directing the rental income to be paid to an account other than the Commonwealth Bank of Australia account ending #...91; or

(b) Signing any further lease agreements, without the written consent of both parties; or

(c) Authorising any repair or maintenance work to be carried out, without the written consent of both parties.

1. This Order acts as an Authority for the Applicant Wife to release a copy of these Orders to the Real Estate Agent with management of the 1 F Street property, and request that all correspondence regarding the 1 F Street property be provided to both parties, and that the Real Estate Agent will only act on the instructions of both parties written consent.
2. From the date of these Orders being signed by both parties and pending the sale of the 1 F Street property, the parties shall be jointly responsible for meeting the mortgage repayments, water rates, and house and contents insurance over the property and shall equally pay these as and when they fall due.
3. In the event any marketing or real estate fees are payable prior to the sale of the 1F Street property, the parties will equally meet these costs and if not, the party paying will be reimbursed from the sale proceeds pursuant to Order 12(d) herein.

1. Within 60 days of the settlement date for the sale of the 1 F Street property, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary to transfer the Respondent Husband's right, title and interest in the property situated at 2 F Street, Suburb G in the state of Queensland and more specifically described as lot ... on registered plan ... in the local government area of Region H and as described on title reference ... ("the 2 F Street property") to the Applicant Wife.
2. Contemporaneously with the transfer of the real property to the Applicant Wife, the Applicant Wife shall do all acts and things necessary to refinance the existing home loan with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (mortgage number ...) over the 2 F Street property into her sole name ensuring a full release of the Respondent Husband's liability for that loan.
3. In the event the Applicant Wife is unable to refinance the mortgage pursuant to Order 20, then the parties shall do all acts and things to effect a sale of the 2 F Street property, and by way of consequential arrangements that shall be made for the purposes of effecting a sale:

(a) The 2 F Street property shall be listed for sale with J Real Estate, Suburb G;

(b) Both parties shall sign all documents necessary to facilitate such listing;

(c) The parties shall accept any offer that falls within 98% of the listing price;

(d) The listing price for the property shall be reduced each and every ninety (90) days, by an amount as recommended by the real estate agent, provided it remains sufficient to discharge the mortgage and to meet the payments pursuant to Order 21(e); and

(e) Upon completion of the sale, the proceeds are to be applied in the following manner and priority:

(i) To pay the real estate costs and commissions, including marketing and advertising fees, and loan finalisation fees or any other penalties;

(ii) In payment of any outstandings, including rates;

(iii) To pay the legal costs and outlays relating to the sale;

(iv) To discharge the mortgage and any other encumbrances effecting the 2F Street property; and

(v) The balance to be retained by the Applicant Wife.

1. From the date of these Orders being signed by both parties and pending the transfer and/or sale of the 2 F Street property, the Applicant Wife shall be entitled to sole occupation of the property and shall maintain the real property in good repair.
2. From the date of these Orders being signed by both parties and pending the transfer and/or sale of the 2 F Street property, the parties will be jointly responsible for meeting the mortgage repayments, water rates, and house and contents insurance over the property and shall pay these as and when they fall due.
3. In the event any marketing or real estate fees are payable prior to the sale of the 2F Street property, the parties will equally meet these costs and if not, the party paying will be reimbursed from the sale proceeds pursuant to Order 21(e)(i) herein.

Capital Gains Tax for D Street, Suburb E property

1. The Applicant Wife shall authorise Best Wilson Buckley Family Law to release from the funds held pursuant to Order 12(e) and the Orders dated 15 October 2024 for the following purposes but in no particular order of priority:

(a) To pay all GST CGT outstanding on the sale of the Suburb E property;

(b) To pay any Land Tax owing at the date of these Orders;

(c) To pay all GST CGT assessed as payable on the sale of the 1F Street property;

(d) To pay the Respondent Husband's share of any mortgage, outgoing or other expense arising from these Orders;

(e) To pay any costs associated with the winding up of K Pty Ltd pursuant to Order 29;

(f) To pay any removalist costs pursuant to Order 27; and

(g) To pay any other costs associated with the implementation of these Orders.

25A. In the event that the expenses are less than or in excess of the $61,000 quarantined pursuant to Order 12(e) and Order 25 then:

(a) Any funds remaining in the controlled monies account of Best Wilson Buckley Family Law following all of the payments set out in Order 25 is to be paid according to their percentage entitlement that is:

1. 73% per cent to the Wife; and
2. 27% per cent to the Husband.

(b) In the event that there are insufficient funds in the account to make the payments required to be made pursuant to Order 25, the parties shall equally pay the shortfall to the Capital Gains Tax and/or Land Tax to the Australian Taxation Office as and when it falls due.

1. Within 28 days from the date of the F Street property being transferred and/or sold, the parties will do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to close any remaining joint account/s and/or credit cards, and at the time of closure shall equally retain any funds remaining in these account/s.

1. Within 30 days from the date of these Orders the Applicant Wife will arrange for delivery to the Respondent Husband all tools of trade remaining in the home at 1F Street and 2 F Street and the costs of delivery shall be reimbursed pursuant to Order 25(f).
2. In the event the Respondent Husband fails to make arrangements for the items referred to at Order 27 to be delivered, the Applicant Wife will be at liberty to dispose of any remaining items within 60 days from the date of these Orders.

1. Within 21 days from the date of these Orders, the parties will jointly sign the Authority at Annexure A of these Orders, to appoint L Law Firm and instruct the firm to assist with making K Pty Ltd (ACN...) compliant with the regulations of the Australian Taxation Office, and the parties will be jointly responsible for any fees associated that cannot otherwise be funded by the self-managed super fund.
2. In the event there is any amount owed to the Australian Taxation Office, the parties will be jointly responsible for same.
3. Within 60 days from the date of these Orders, the parties do all such acts and things and sign all such documents, including but not limited to the signing of trustee minutes, rollover requests and related documents that may be necessary to transfer the remaining balance in K Pty Ltd (ACN...) to another complying superannuation fund of the Respondent Husband's choosing.
4. Within 30 days of the parties transferring their member entitlements from K Pty Ltd (ACN...) to the Respondent Husband's nominated complying super fund, the parties will do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to close any bank account associated with K Pty Ltd (ACN ...), and de-registered each parties interest.

Other clauses /determination of financial relationship between the parties

1. Save as otherwise provided in these Orders, the transferee or the party receiving the benefit of any transaction pursuant to these Orders shall prepare the documentation necessary to give effect to the provisions of these Orders at their cost and shall further be responsible for the payment of registration fees and all other fees in relation to the transfer of property into their name, and the other party shall sign any document to give effect to these Orders within seven (7) days of being provided with such document.
2. Any duty levied pursuant to the Duties Act 2001 (Qld) payable on transactions arising from these Orders or any documents executed pursuant to these Orders be paid by the transferee party or the party receiving the benefit of same.
3. The parties will promptly comply with the requirements of the Duties Act 2001 (Qld) and associated legislation and all requisitions issued by the Office of State Revenue in relation to any document executed or transaction pursuant to or putting into effect the terms and conditions of this Order. In default of either of the parties hereto complying with any requisition so issued within seven (7) days of the date upon which outstanding requisition and recover from the other party in default the costs and outlays incurred in complying with any requisition, such costs to be calculated in accordance with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
4. Except as otherwise provided in these Orders, each party is declared to have no further interest in the items of property in the possession of the other.
5. In the event that either party refuses or neglects to comply with the provisions of these Orders:

(a) Pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia at Brisbane is hereby appointed to execute all deeds and documents in the name of the defaulting party and do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to these Orders; and

(b) An Affidavit of the solicitor for the non-defaulting party shall be sufficient evidence of such non-compliance.

1. Order 9 of the Orders made on 9 July 2024, Order 2 of the Orders made on 26 November 2024, and Order 5 of the Orders made on 23 May 2025 are discharged.
2. Order 4 of the Orders made on 2 December 2024 is discharged.

1. These Orders have been amended pursuant to Rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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

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

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

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

Note: the annexures have been omitted to comply with Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

1. These proceedings concern an application by the parties for orders under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") for the adjustment of their modest property interests following the breakdown of a marriage of 16 years duration, during which they had four children.
2. The wife contends that family violence experienced by her and the children affected her ability to make financial and non-financial contributions, and to contribute to the welfare of the family, particularly in the post-separation period. Where the Court is satisfied that family violence occurred, it is tasked with evaluating its impact upon the contributions of the parties, and to the wife's current and future needs.
3. Recent legislative amendments have elevated the significance of the duty of disclosure in property proceedings. The wife asserts that her conduct of these proceedings has been impeded by the husband's non-compliance with that duty and by the manner in which he has conducted the litigation which has led to wastage of the assets available for distribution. These matters are plainly relevant to the exercise of discretion, although the central question remains what assessment is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
4. For convenience, I will refer to the applicant as "the wife" and the respondent as "the husband," reflecting their former relationship and without intending any disrespect.

(a) How the parties' contributions should properly be assessed, including the relevance of family violence; and

(b) Whether, and to what extent, an adjustment should be made in favour of the wife having regard to the parties' current and future circumstances including having regard to the effect of the husband's non-compliance with his duty of disclosure and wastage.

1. In support of her substantive application for final property orders, the wife relied on the following documents:

(a) Amended Initiating Application filed on 29 September 2025

(b) Amended Financial Statement filed on 29 September 2025

(c) Affidavit of Ms Gronow filed on 29 September 2025

(d) Affidavit of Mr M filed on 4 June 2025

(e) Affidavit of Mr N filed on 28 May 2025

(f) Costs Notice filed on 22 October 2025

1. In support of his substantive application for final property orders, the husband relied on the following documents:

(a) Amended Response filed on 18 July 2025

(b) One order from the Response filed on 8 July 2024

(c) Financial Statement filed on 8 July 2024

(d) Affidavit of Mr Gronow filed on 8 July 2024

1. The wife prepared a Joint Balance Sheet. The husband was asked to identify the items and values he disagreed with. He did this by hand and that document was marked and tendered.
2. The Court excluded all annexures to each party's consolidated affidavit having regard to r 8.15(3)(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules"). However, some were tendered.
3. I have had regard to the material tendered as exhibits.

1. The hearing was allocated two days commencing on 29 October 2025.
2. On 29 October 2025 the wife was represented by Counsel and the husband appeared without representation. In default of r 10.26 of the Rules he had not complied with orders requiring him to file and serve evidence.
3. To ensure procedural fairness and noting that the husband had attended all court appearances and sought to press the orders he sought, he was asked to identify the previously filed evidence that he relied upon. The matter was stood down overnight to afford him the opportunity to prepare his case and gather any documents that he proposed to tender.
4. The matter, at the election of the parties, proceeded without cross-examination.
5. Whilst I have not referred to every aspect of the evidence, I have taken it all into account and considered it.

1. In 1982, the wife was born. She is 43 years old.
2. In 1985, the husband was born. He is 40 years old.
3. In May 2007, the wife and the husband commenced cohabitation.
4. In 2010, the wife and the husband were married.
5. In 2011, the wife and the husband purchased the property at F Street, Suburb G ("F Street"), using $70,000 equity from the wife's property at O Street, Suburb P ("Suburb P").
6. In 2012, the parties' first child, X, was born.
7. In 2013, the husband's parents acted as guarantors for $140,000 to enable the purchase of 1F Street, Suburb G ("F Street").
8. In 2014, the parties' second child, Y, was born.
9. In April 2015, the wife sold O Street, Suburb P for $355,000, but no sale proceeds were received as the equity was used for the acquisition of the property at 2 F Street, Suburb G.
10. In 2016, the wife and the husband repaid the husband's parents in full for the guaranteed loan over 1 F Street, plus an additional $20,000.
11. In 2016, the parties' third child, Z, was born.
12. In 2020, the parties' fourth child, W, was born.
13. In December 2021, the wife and the husband purchased a house and land package at D Street, Suburb E ("Suburb E"), paying $30,000 towards the deposit.
14. In 2021/2022, storms caused damage to the contents and house at 2 F Street. The wife and the husband made an insurance claim and received cash settlements over a period of time. The wife has used these funds for general living expenses since the separation.
15. In August 2022, the final building approval for Suburb E was completed, and the wife and the husband obtained a loan for approximately $424,700. They used approximately $160,000 from the remortgage of 1 F Street to pay for the land.
16. On 24 July 2023, the wife and husband separated.
17. On 20 December 2023, funds were released for the build of the Suburb E property.
18. On 30 April 2024, interim orders were made for the wife and the husband to be jointly responsible for mortgages and outgoings related to the matrimonial properties, and for disclosure.
19. On 29 September 2025, the wife filed her trial material.
20. On 21 October 2025, a trial management hearing took place. The husband advised the Court that he was in the process of securing legal representation for the final hearing.
21. The final hearing commenced on 29 October 2025 and was heard over two days.

1. The wife alleges that she and the children were exposed to family violence both during the relationship and post-separation.
2. For example, she contends that during the marriage the husband was verbally abusive towards her and their children, particularly their eldest son, X who has Autism Spectrum Disorder ("ASD"). She alleges that he frequently called X derogatory names and ridiculed him in front of family and friends. She also alleges that the husband physically abused X, and wrapped him in yellow caution tape, and hit X with a vomit bucket. She alleges that X disclosed to his treating psychologist that he "wanted to die". These concerns were reported to the Department of Child Safety.
3. The wife further asserts that, during the relationship, she was subjected to financial control by the husband, which compelled her to seek financial assistance from her parents to meet essential family expenses, including food and clothing for the children.
4. It is appropriate to outline the post-separation events pertaining to family violence. The post-separation family violence events include:

(a) In July 2023, the wife attended Suburb Q Police Station to report allegations of domestic violence. A Police Protection Notice was issued, naming the wife as the aggrieved and the children as named persons. The allegations included acts of physical violence towards the children, verbal abuse towards the wife and children, and suicidal ideations expressed by the husband.

(b) In mid-2023, a Protection Order was finalised by way of consent without admissions.

(c) On 30 August 2023, the husband breached the Protection Order by attending the wife's property without permission. During this visit, he attempted to collect property, including the children's dog and the youngest child, W. He pleaded guilty and was fined for this breach.

(d) In mid-2023, the Protection Order was varied and made final.

(e) Between 6 September 2023 and 19 September 2023, the husband sent a series of text messages to the wife. The wife reported the text messages to the police, however, did not seek to provide a statement.

(f) On 19 September 2023, the husband approached the wife in the car park of W's daycare and followed her home without permission. The wife reported this incident to the police.

(g) On or around 14 October 2023, the husband attended F Street whilst the wife was there cleaning and preparing the property for the next tenant. He claimed he had the right to be at the property notwithstanding the terms of the Protection Order. This incident was reported to the police by the wife and the husband later charged.

(h) On 16 October 2023, during a phone conversation the husband called the wife a "psychopath" and "psycho". The wife recorded this conversation and reported the incident to the police, and the husband was later charged.

(i) Between 28 and 30 October 2023, the husband sent the wife a series of text messages, including a threat to seek custody of their children if she did not talk to him. The wife reported the text messages to the police and stated that "she felt like the [husband] was attempting to coerce her into retracting her previous reports to the police". The husband was later interviewed by the police and charged. In his interview the husband "stated that his intent behind sending the messages was for the [wife] to go to police and tell them that 'she made it up', referring to her previous police reports".

(j) On 27 December 2023, the wife complained to police that the husband had breached the Protection Order between 11 November 2023 and 25 December 2023 in relation to him making social media posts, "have another person attend [the wife's] house and deliver her gifts, insinuate that she is a liar and sign Christmas cards on her behalf". In the wife's trial affidavit, she alleges that the husband attended her cousin's house uninvited on Christmas Day and distributed a typed letter to her family and friends attesting to his innocence.

(k) On or around January 2024, the wife filed an Application to Vary the Protection Order. She sought that further conditions be added including that the husband:

• Be prohibited from following, remaining or approaching within 100 metres of the wife;
• Be prohibited from entering, attempting to enter or approaching within 100 metres of the wife's place of employment;
• Be prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or ask someone else to contact the wife by any means whatsoever; and
• Must not use the internet or any other communication device to communicate with, publish pictures of or make adverse comments concerning the wife.

(l) In early 2024 a Temporary Protection Order was made for the protection of the wife.

(m) In February 2024, the wife complained to police that between 15 and 22 February 2024, the husband breached the Protection Order by tampering with CCTV cameras at the wife's residence and removing items without her consent.

(n) In March 2024, the wife complained to police in relation to two incidents where the husband had breached the Protection Order. Firstly, that on 28 February 2024 she received a call from the husband in breach of the Protection Order. In the wife's statement to police, she notes that the husband called her "a 'psychopath' and a 'psycho' during a phone conversation, told the children that he was at a police station because the [wife] was making things harder for him again, and made a demeaning post about the [wife] on Facebook". Secondly, that on 1 March 2024 the husband sent the wife a text message without her consent, with one of the text messages not being in relation to the children. The husband was later charged for both these occurrences.

(o) in early 2024, the husband was placed in custody in prison due to charges of breaching the Protection Order. He was refused bail and remained in custody for one month.

(p) In early 2024, when the husband was remanded in custody, the husband's father filed an Application for a Protection Order on behalf of the husband and the four children, naming the husband as the aggrieved party and the wife as the respondent. The paternal grandfather alleged that the wife had:

• Verbally abused the husband and the children over the course of their marriage;
• Physically hit the husband during outbursts;
• Controlled the family's finances; and
• He expressed concern for the children's wellbeing.

(q) In August 2024, the wife complained to police that between 12 and 19 July 2024 the husband had attended her home and contacted the skip bin company she had hired, attempting to relocate the bin to his own property.

(r) in February 2025, the wife complained to police that between 3 and 20 December 2024 the husband had breached the Protection Order by sending her multiple text messages which were not in relation to the children and included comments which were not in line with the good behaviour condition. The husband was later charged in relation to this incident.

(s) In February 2025, the Protection Order was varied to include additional conditions, and the Application filed in April 2024 by the paternal grandfather was withdrawn.

(t) In May 2025, the wife complained to police that on 25 April 2025 the husband had breached the Protection Order by following her into a McDonalds carpark, observing her at this location and remaining at the location within 100 metres of her. The husband was later charged in relation to this incident.

(u) In mid-2025, the husband was sentenced to nine months of probation for two charges of aggravated contravention of the Domestic Violence Order for the events that occurred between 3 and 20 December 2024 as well as the event in April 2025.

(v) In July 2025, the wife reported to police that between May 2025 and July 2025 the husband was sending X text messages which were causing the child stress and anxiety.

(w) On 29 July 2025, the paternal grandfather entered the wife's property at approximately 4.30 pm, despite the wife stating that he should not attend without her being present and offering a later time of 5.30 pm. During this visit, it is alleged that he removed multiple items from the storage shed without the wife's permission. This incident took place in the presence of the children and was reported to the police by the wife on 30 July 2025.

1. The wife's evidence about family violence was detailed, compelling, and was supported by police material and the orders made in the Magistrate's Court.
2. During the hearing the husband conceded some of the family violence, or at least his breaches of the Protection Orders. In correspondence on his behalf, he also conceded this but said they "stemmed from misunderstandings (e.g. believing he could attend the property with notice) and were non-violent".
3. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to allow me to make findings that any family violence that might have occurred prior to separation, effected the wife's ability to make contributions. Indeed, this was not an argument seriously pressed by the wife's counsel.
4. I am satisfied that the husband engaged in family violence towards the wife post-separation. Whilst these events took place, the wife was working part-time as an educator, managing the responsibility for physically and financially maintaining the matrimonial property including negotiating for the repayment of significant loans, preparing a rental property for tenants, and ensuring that the children received treatment from allied health professionals for their special needs. This is relevant to any later assessment of the impact of the family violence on her contributions.
5. I accept the evidence in the wife's case that the husband's conduct post-separation impacted on her ability to make contributions. I will return to this issue when considering the weight of the parties' respective contributions.
6. Consistent with the observations of Aldridge J in Martell & Martell [2023] FedCFamC1A 71; (2023) 66 Fam LR 650 at [25], I find that in this case:

The threshold for recognition is therefore met by conduct which has a discernible effect on the contributions of the other party such that it should be recognised in determining the respective contributions of the parties.

1. The wife's primary proposal is that she receive 75 per cent of the net property pool including superannuation. She submits that she made greater initial contributions and was the primary homemaker and parent throughout the relationship. She says the Court should find an assessment of 60 per cent in her favour on contributions. She further argues that an adjustment on current and future circumstances be made in her favour of 15 per cent.
2. The wife seeks that the Court make orders in accordance with her Further Amended Initiating Application filed on 29 September 2025. These orders provide that:

(a) The 1 F Street property be transferred into the husband's sole name provided the wife is released from the loan subject to it.

(b) The 2 F Street property be transferred into the wife's sole name, with the wife to refinance the home loan into her sole name.

(c) The husband pay the wife an amount to give effect to a 75/25 division and in addition to this paying for his share of expenses in relation to the mortgages, rates and water for the properties in accordance with Order 13 of the Orders made on 30 April 2024.

(d) The Self-Managed Superannuation Fund, K Pty Ltd, be closed with the funds being transferred to another complying superannuation fund of the husband's choosing.

1. The wife also provided the Court with an alternative position, which essentially allows for a 70/30 division of the net property pool (including superannuation) in her favour. This alternative Minute of Order did not require the husband to pay for his share of expenses in relation to the mortgages, rates and water for the properties, and relieves him of the monies he owes the wife arising from the costs orders made in her favour to date.
2. The husband's proposal is that the net property pool including superannuation be divided by way of a 64.5/35.5 split in favour of the wife. He did not articulate how he reached this figure in terms of a contributions assessment or a future circumstances adjustment.
3. He seeks orders in accordance with his Amended Response filed on 18 July 2025.
4. Ultimately, the parties were not in significant disagreement as to the structure of the orders, but they are around 10 to 15 per cent apart in their respective proposals. They also disagree on some values attributed in the balance sheet.

1. Part VIII of the Act contains the statutory provisions applying to the alteration of property interests between married parties, including s 79.
2. Significant amendments to Pt VIII of the Act, made by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) ("Amendment Act"), commenced operation on 10 June 2025. Those amendments apply to the determination of this proceeding, being a proceeding instituted before 10 June 2025, which has not been finally determined and in respect of which a final hearing had not commenced before 10 June 2025 (Amendment Act Sch 1 s 68).
3. Pursuant to s 79 of the Act, the Court has a discretion to make orders altering the parties' interests in property, provided it is considered just and equitable to do so (s 79(2)). If I reach this conclusion, I am required to consider the matters prescribed by ss 79(4) and 79(5) (s 79(3)(b)).
4. Section 79(3) of the Act sets out the property decision-making framework and the approach the Court is to take when considering what order to make under s 79 (if any), including that the Court:

(a) is to identify:

(i) the existing legal and equitable rights and interests in any property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and

(ii) the existing liabilities of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and

1. It is necessary to begin by identifying the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in property, their existing liabilities and superannuation entitlements (s 79(3)(a)). The wife filed a balance sheet (Exhibit 1). The husband did not but marked up a balance sheet with his contentions (Exhibit 6). The following items remained the subject of dispute at the conclusion of the hearing.

1. The wife argues that 2 F Street should be valued at $1,150,000 as per the valuation report dated 8 October 2024 by single expert Mr N. The husband argues that the value attributed to the property should be $1,250,000. He did not provide any evidence to support this contention. Accordingly, on the evidence before me, I have adopted the wife's value.

1. The wife submits that her value of $1,350,000 should be adopted because it was a previously agreed position. It was also a value contained in her balance sheet which had been served on the husband well in advance of the hearing.
2. By way of background, on 2 December 2024 orders were made for the property to be sold following completion of insurance repairs. The husband then indicated that he wished to retain the property. The wife proposed a joint valuation of the property suggesting a panel of valuers for the husband's nomination. She proposed that the cost for the joint valuation be paid jointly by both parties. The husband did not respond to the draft joint letter to the valuer.
3. At the hearing the husband produced a valuation report from S Company dated 12 February 2025 which (it appears) was obtained for the purposes of a re-finance and without the wife's involvement. He argues that the property be valued at $1,150,000 in accordance with that valuation report.
4. Prior to the hearing the husband did not advise the wife that he disputed the value. He took no steps to join with her in obtaining a single expert valuation (notwithstanding the active steps she had taken). He did not serve the S Company valuation on her. Had he done so, she at least might have been able to obtain her own adversarial expert. For these reasons, the wife's value of $1,350,000 will be adopted.

1. The wife argues that this asset should be valued at $6,000 as it was the value initially proposed by the husband. In the husband's affidavit of 8 July 2024, he deposes that the silver and gold bullion "was sold in April for $6,000" to pay his legal expenses. His Financial Statement filed on 8 July 2024 makes a similar assertion. Irrespective of this, the husband asserts a value of $1,500.
2. The husband was obliged to disclose to the wife details of the sale of the silver and gold bullion, if that actually occurred. He had ample opportunity to provide evidence to the Court of the sale. He failed to do so, and accordingly the value adopted will be $6,000.

Cash in bank account ending in #...91 (Rental account for 1 F Street)

1. The wife asserts that a nominal value be attached to this account because the account balance fluctuates with rent received. The wife tendered a current screenshot of the bank account ending in #...91, which showed a balance of $1,961.18. On the evidence before me I will attribute a value of $1,961 to the bank account.

1. The wife asserts that the value is unknown and that the husband has not provided disclosure for this account since 28 October 2024. The husband disagrees with this assertion and argues that a negative value of $618 be attributed to the account. There is no evidence before me as to the current balance of the account. In these circumstances I will attribute a nil value to the account.

1. The wife asserts that an unknown value be attached to this account and that she has not received disclosure for this account since 14 October 2024. The husband argues that the account has zero value. In these circumstances I will attribute a nil value to the account.

Cash in bank accounts ending in #...64, #...09 and #...04

1. The wife asserts that these bank accounts be attributed a nominal value. The husband did not attribute a value to these accounts. In these circumstances I will attribute a nil value to these accounts.

1. B is the family dog. For reasons that follow, I will remove B from the balance sheet.

1. The wife asserts a liability of $384,591 noting that this was the balance as at 29 September 2025. The husband asserts the value of $383,169. The difference between these two values is nominal and with limited evidence before me I accept the wife's figure.

1. The wife asserts a liability of $560,777, noting that this was the balance as at October 2025. The husband asserts the value of $593,963. The husband tendered a Loan Activity Statement dated 30 June 2025 with the closing loan balance then being at $560,590. I adopt the wife's figure which is more current.

1. The wife asserts a negative value of $7,803 be attached to this account. She notes that this was the balance as at 12 October 2025. The husband does not provide a value for this liability. I accept the wife's value.

1. The wife asserts a negative value of $5,209, nothing that this was the balance at 10 October 2025. The husband does not provide a value for this liability and accordingly I accept the wife's value.

1. There was no evidence before the Court that would allow anything but a nil value to be attributed to this account.

1. The wife asserts the sum of $7,865.65 is payable in relation to the capital gains tax associated with the sale of the Suburb E property. The husband does not provide a figure for this debt. In these circumstances I accept the wife's value.

1. The husband included a liability for "land tax", attributing a value of $3,025. He tendered a Final Payment Reminder from the Queensland Revenue Office dated 2 June 2025. The wife did not include this liability on her balance sheet, and it appears the husband has placed a zero value in the wife's column.
2. The husband was obliged to disclose to the wife details of the land tax liability, and he failed to do so. With the limited evidence before me, I will not include the land tax liability on the balance sheet. Provision for the payment of outstanding land tax will however be made in the final orders.

1. The husband asserts that he has a loan of $21,855 for his business. There was no evidence before the Court in relation to this liability and accordingly it will not be included on the balance sheet.

1. The wife values the interest at $14,748. The husband argues the value of $15,271 should be attached to his interest in Super Fund 1. The difference between these two values is nominal and with limited evidence before me I accept the wife's value.
2. For reasons that follow, I find those interests of value to comprise:

Cash at Bank #...91 (Rental Account for 1 F Street)

It is noted that some numbers have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

1. Both parties seek an alteration of their property interests to finally determine the financial relationship between them. I therefore infer from this that both parties accept that the making of an order would be just and equitable. I also consider it to be just and equitable to make a property settlement order because there will no longer be the common use of property by the parties.

1. Having identified the parties' existing rights and interests in property and their existing liabilities, I now turn to the considerations set out in s 79(4) so far as they are relevant, being matters relating to the parties' contributions, as required by par 79(3)(b)(i).
2. Notwithstanding recent amendments to s 79, the Court's consideration remains a holistic assessment of the respective contributions of the parties, reflecting the well-established position at common law.
3. Those common law principles require that when determining what orders are to be made, the Court is to approach the assessment of contributions holistically, by analysing the nature, form and characteristics of those contributions with reference to the particular circumstances of the relationship as confirmed in Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154; (2012) 50 Fam LR 244. This process involves the exercise of a wide discretion, not the performance of a mathematical or accounting exercise and should be undertaken without over-zealous attention to the ascertainment of contributions.
4. I will therefore now embark upon a process that weighs all of the contributions made by the parties collectively.

1. At the commencement of the relationship, the parties had the following assets and liabilities.
2. The wife:

(a) Owned a property at Suburb P, which had approximately $70,000 in equity;

(b) Had furniture worth approximately $19,000;

(c) A car worth $35,000; and

(d) Superannuation of approximately $60,000.

1. The husband had minimal assets and liabilities at the commencement of the relationship.
2. The wife made a greater initial contribution especially through the equity she brought in from her interest in Suburb P. Some weight should be attached to this.

1. The wife contributed equity from her property at Suburb P which was used to purchase the property at 2 F Street. The husband conceded this during his submissions.
2. Apart from her initial contributions via the sale of Suburb P, her counsel accepted that there was an equality of contributions during the marriage, summarised as follows:

(a) The wife:

• Undertook the majority of homemaking and parenting duties;
• Assisted with improvements to the renovations at 2 F Street;
• Managed the bookwork and administrative tasks for the husband's business; and
• Worked part-time between the birth of the children.

(b) The husband:

• Was the primary financial contributor during the marriage. He consistently earned a higher income through both FIFO work and later through his business, C Business;
• Contributed $10,000 from a redundancy payout in 2010 to repay a loan from the wife's parents for the purchase of a motor vehicle;
• Had his parents act as guarantors to enable the purchase of 1 F Street;
• Undertook electrical work, structural improvements and renovations at the properties; and
• Assisted with parenting and homemaking tasks when he was not at work.

1. Each party made financial and non-financial contributions throughout the marriage either directly or indirectly to the acquisition of property and to the welfare of the family. These contributions should be treated equally.

1. The wife argues that an adjustment should be made in her favour to recognise her significant post-separation contributions.

1. She has been solely responsible for maintaining the mortgage repayments and outgoings for the properties located at 2 F Street and 1 F Street, (despite court orders requiring the husband to contribute equally). She estimates that the husband contributed $9,500 financially towards the mortgages and expenses post-separation.
2. To meet these financial obligations (and prevent the mortgages secured against the properties from being placed in default) she has:

(a) Used the insurance payout;

(b) Worked part-time and contributed her income;

(c) Borrowed funds from her parents;

(d) Used $15,000 victims of crime payment; and

(e) Utilised credit cards and took out a litigation loan, both of which have accrued interest.

1. She personally attended to repairs and maintenance at the 1 F Street property including, rubbish removal, cleaning, liaising with insurance personnel and assessors, and coordinating with tradespeople to complete necessary repairs.
2. She managed the reinstatement of insurance policies for the properties after the husband unilaterally changed payment details and failed to make payments, resulting in the cancellation of insurance for 1 F Street and arrears for 2 F Street.

1. She has been the primary caregiver for the four children who have special needs.
2. She has been solely responsible for the children's day-to-day care and therapeutic needs, including funding their ongoing psychologist appointments and other medical expenses.
3. The husband did not put before the Court any evidence about his post-separation contributions. It is difficult to know what they are because of the husband's failure to provide updated disclosure as set out earlier. However, the uncontroversial evidence appears to be that:

(a) Between the separation in July 2023 and the commencement of these proceedings in April 2024, he contributed only $9,500 towards joint expenses and the children's needs;

(b) He has unilaterally withdrawn funds from the rent account for 1 F Street, despite court orders restraining such withdrawals;

(c) His earning capacity has been impacted by periods of imprisonment due to his breaches of the Protection Orders;

(d) His involvement in property maintenance and repairs has been limited due to the Protection Orders in place restricting him from attending at those locations;

(e) He has spent limited time with the children since separation, with only three supervised visits to date; and

(f) He pays no child support.

1. The wife's contributions post separation have been significant when compared to those of the husband which have been minimal.
2. Section 79(4)(ca) of the Act requires the Court to consider the effect of any family violence, to which one party to the marriage has subjected or exposed the other party, on the ability of a party to the marriage to make the kind of contributions referred to elsewhere in s 79(4).
3. The wife gave several examples of the arduous impact that the family violence had on her contributions post-separation. Some of these include:

(a) The husband's behaviour created an environment of fear and instability, rendering her homemaker, parenting and financial contributions significantly more onerous.

(b) The husband's continued breaches of the Protection Orders were intimidatory in nature, compounding her hardship, resulting in an ongoing emotional and practical burden. The Application for a Protection Order filed on behalf of the husband by his father was done vexatiously and served to cause her further distress.

(c) The manner in which the husband conducted the financial and legal affairs led to loans being placed in default and the wife having to spend time negotiating arrangements to address their financial difficulties, resulting in an ongoing emotional and practical burden.

(d) The wife has been solely responsible for the care of the children. Her parenting contributions have therefore been significantly more onerous, as she has been required to care for the children in circumstances of ongoing family violence, and emotional and financial distress.

1. The Court accepts that the wife's post-separation contributions affected her ability to make contributions because her contributions have been rendered significantly more onerous as a consequence of the family violence.
2. Having determined that the husband's conduct, including acts of family violence following separation, has materially affected the wife's contributions, it is necessary to consider the extent to which this factor should influence the overall assessment of contributions.
3. By the time this judgment is delivered, approximately two and a half years will have elapsed since the parties' separation. This period represents two and a half years out of a total of 18 years of their financial relationship. Viewed in this context, while an adjustment in favour of the wife is warranted, it can only be modest, given the Court's findings regarding the substantial equality of contributions throughout the relationship prior to separation.
4. In assessing the totality of the parties' contributions holistically before, during their relationship, and after it, I determine those contributions favour the wife by 8 per cent.
5. Given the very modest value of the parties' superannuation interests, I determine to adopt a one pool approach to that assessment. Such an outcome reflects a difference in dollar terms of $155,451.
6. I therefore conclude that the wife's contributions ought to be assessed as 58 per cent and the husband's as 42 per cent.

1. I am required by s 79(5) of the Act, to take into account the relevant listed considerations for the purposes of s 79(3)(b)(ii), being considerations relating to the parties' current and future circumstances.
2. The wife is 43 years of age and is employed part-time as an educator, earning approximately $48,000 per annum. The evidence indicates that the financial and domestic arrangements during the marriage enabled the husband to maintain and advance his career, while limiting the wife's opportunities for professional progression. This appears to have resulted in the likelihood that she will continue to earn a low salary from part-time employment and her ability to work full-time is limited for reasons that follow.
3. She enjoys good physical health but her mental health is vulnerable as a result of the impact of the husband's family violence. She previously had a mental health care plan under her General Practitioner, which covered ten sessions per calendar year. However, she is now required to pay for these sessions herself, which has resulted in a reduced frequency of appointments due to financial constraints. Whilst conceivably the Victims of Crime compensation was intended for this purpose, it was expended by her on supporting the family post separation.
4. Three of the children have been diagnosed with ASD and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), together with other developmental conditions including dyslexia, dysgraphia, and difficulties with emotional regulation. These diagnoses necessitate ongoing therapeutic interventions, including psychological services, speech therapy, and exercise physiology, which are presently funded by the wife.
5. The wife deposes that X attends psychology sessions on a fortnightly basis, which are currently funded through his National Disability Insurance Scheme ("NDIS") plan. She expresses concern that these costs, which appear to be connected to the family violence experienced by X, may in future fall upon her personally.
6. The wife bears sole responsibility for meeting the children's expenses. She has obtained a domestic violence exemption from the Child Support Agency, relieving her of any obligation to seek child support from the husband. She receives some assistance through a carer's allowance. No evidence was presented to the Court regarding the effect of this exemption on her other social security entitlements.
7. As a direct result of the husband's failure to file income tax returns, the wife is exposed to the possibility of over or underpayments by Centrelink. For example, as a result of the husband's failure to complete his tax return for the 2022-2023 financial year, the wife's childcare subsidy was cancelled. She says that this has had the following impact upon her:

(a) It resulted in an overpayment by Centrelink of $6,364.81 (now reflected as a liability on the assets and liability table).

(b) It required her to change her work routine because she cannot afford to have the children in before or after school care without the subsidy.

(c) The lack of childcare for her four children has directly impacted her employment as an educator. Of this she says: "it meant I was not able to stay for our Tuesday staff meetings after school and was arriving at school on the bell and leaving on the bell. I am worried that this may impact my employment, as I have not been able to provide dedicated time to my work".

1. The husband is 40 years of age and operates his own business. The wife contends that the husband previously had an earning capacity of at least $130,000 per annum through this enterprise. In the wife's Case Outline document, she asserts that the profit and loss statement for the financial year ending 2022 records a turnover of $274,759.81 and a gross profit of $190,073. She further asserts that in addition to the profit, the husband received benefits through the business, including motor vehicle and telephone expenses, wages, and a director's loan of $84,223. The wife estimates that the husband's derived income and benefits totalled approximately $220,604 during that financial year.
2. The wife further alleges that the husband has utilised business accounts for personal expenditure. She refers to disclosed business account statements which record significant personal transactions, including $1,092 spent on alcohol and $2,600 in cash withdrawals over a two-month period in 2025. The absence of any financial statements for the business since 2022, coupled with incomplete disclosure of financial records, has rendered it impossible to determine his current income.
3. The husband asserts that his income has substantially decreased due to the emotional impact of the separation, limitations on his access to tools of trade, and difficulties in managing his business. While I do not completely disregard these claims, there was no evidence before the Court of any matter that would prevent or materially impair his ability to restore his earning capacity.
4. The husband currently resides with his parents rent-free.
5. I am required by s 79(5) of the Act, to take into account the relevant listed considerations and this includes the liabilities incurred by either of the parties including the circumstances relating to them. Aside from those liabilities referred to on the table of assets and liabilities, there was evidence of other liabilities:

(a) The wife has taken out a loan with JustFund to fund her litigation. She currently has $69,462 outstanding. It is contended that the loan reflects the financial strain she has faced due to the husband's non-compliance with court orders and his conduct during the proceedings.

(b) The husband tendered a final payment notice from the Queensland Revenue Office dated 2 June 2025 calculating overdue land tax at $5,757.

(c) On 3 September 2024 the Court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of $1,746.15 due to his non-compliance with court orders, including delays in providing disclosure and valuations. Subsequently, the wife's costs have been reserved by the Court on 9 July 2024, 26 November 2024, and 23 May 2025 due to the late filing of material and failure to provide full disclosure. No submissions were made in relation to the quantum sought.

1. The wife's alternate minute proposes that the parties indemnify each other for all liabilities from the date of these orders, effectively forgiving the cost orders made to date. This approach is appealing as it avoids potential double counting, given the wife's assertion that the husband's conduct has already diminished the property pool available for distribution.

1. It is necessary to consider the husband's conduct during these proceedings, as the wife contends that it has diminished the property pool available for division. She argues that the husband did not comply with his obligation to provide full and frank financial disclosure and opposed efforts to reach a settlement. This conduct, she contends, contributed to delay, and increased the wife's legal costs leading to additional liabilities for her.
2. I find that the husband failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his financial position to the wife throughout these proceedings because:

(a) Despite the husband filing undertakings as to disclosure on 9 July 2024 and 18 July 2025, by the time of the hearing the husband had failed to file and serve evidence of his financial position (as ordered), nor had he provided updated disclosure for several financial documents, including:

• Bank statements for multiple accounts;
• Personal tax returns and notices of assessment for the financial years ending 2023, 2024, and 2025;
• Financial statements and company tax returns for the husband's business, C Pty Ltd, for the financial years ending 2023, 2024, and 2025; and
• Disclosure of the payout for Motor Vehicle 4.

(b) It is noted that the husband on the morning of day 2 of the final hearing sent via email a "dropbox link" containing some documents. There was insufficient time for the wife to inspect these documents. It cannot be said that the documents made available at that time amounted to disclosure as required by the Rules.

1. I find that the husband displayed a belligerent attitude to the wife and his obligations under court orders, which led to wastage of assets or a diminishment of the available pool for distribution. This was evidenced by:

(a) On 2 December 2024, the Court ordered the husband to repay $5,650 to the 1 F Street offset account due to his unilateral withdrawal of funds. However, he only repaid $4,840.95, leaving an outstanding amount of $809.95, which remains unpaid.

(b) Despite court orders restraining both parties from withdrawing funds from the 1 F Street account, the husband continued to make withdrawals, up until the final hearing of the matter. These withdrawals totalled $2,700, between 8 December 2024 and 12 September 2025, but a further $620 was withdrawn by the husband in the lead up to the trial. This led to further interim orders being made at the conclusion of the hearing.

(c) The husband failed to comply with Order 13 of the Orders dated 30 April 2024, which required both parties to equally share the costs of joint outgoings and mortgages. The wife suggested that the total amount owed by the husband as of 29 September 2025 was $78,728.44 but no calculations of this were provided. The wife covered the husband's share to prevent the properties from being placed in default but in doing so diminished the available pool for distribution.

1. I find that the wife's legal costs (and therefore liabilities) were unnecessarily increased because:

(a) She had no choice but to seek interim orders to address urgent financial matters and avoid significant interest charges and financial hardship;

(b) On 1 April 2024, she was forced to seek interim orders appointing her as trustee to authorise payments for the completion of the Suburb E property and to act as trustee for its sale. This was necessary to avoid significant late fees, risk of repossession of other properties, and alleviate her ongoing financial hardship;

(c) To obtain full and frank disclosure of the husband's financial position, her lawyers were instructed to correspond with the husband's legal representatives to resolve outstanding issues; and

(d) The husband refused to engage in her attempts to resolve the property settlement amicably through negotiation and mediation, evidenced by the sending of at least three Calderbank offers to the husband to settle, her lawyers arranging for a mediation, which she argues was unproductive due to the husband's failure to make full and frank disclosure of his financial position.

1. I am satisfied that the wife will have the majority care of the four children until they attain 18 years of age, which will be in thirteen years from now. Given the special needs of the children, it is conceivable that the wife will be providing ongoing care and support for even longer. Her experiences during the marriage, combined with her ongoing child caring responsibilities will continue to impact on her ability to progress further in her profession or return to full-time work. It also means that she requires affordable and appropriate accommodation for the children.
2. Whilst I am unable to make findings about the husband's actual income, I am satisfied that there will continue to be a significant differential in the income earning capacity of each party.
3. From her income, the wife will be required to meet the children's day-to-day costs and additional medical costs. This includes childcare expenses and costs for mental health professionals. The psychological treatment she (and X) are receiving is a direct result of the family violence.
4. It is unlikely in my view that she will receive future child support payments from the husband, whether by virtue of her election not to do so because of family violence, or because he fails to disclose his income.
5. I also find it likely that the wife will continue to provide this care and support for the children without any practical, physical, emotional or financial support from the husband.
6. The wife has requested an adjustment of 15 per cent for future needs in the division of the property and superannuation pool to account for her financial and caregiving responsibilities. In dollar terms, this equates to $291,471. I am satisfied that such an adjustment is warranted, given:

(a) The significant disparity in the parties' income, and the likelihood that this disparity will continue given the wife's caring responsibilities for the children;

(b) The need for the wife to provide housing for the children and meet additional costs for them, until each attains 18 years of age; and

(c) The wife's need to repay her litigation funding loan.

1. Pursuant to the above assessment, I consider it just and equitable for the parties' known interests in property and superannuation to be altered such that the parties' assets and superannuation are divided in the proportions of 73 per cent to the wife and 27 per cent to the husband. This equates to the wife receiving assets, liabilities and superannuation valued at $1,418,494 and the husband receiving $524,648.
2. The wife's main priority was to ensure she remained living at 2 F Street which comfortably houses the four children. It is subject to a mortgage, but a 73/27 division should see enough funds available to discharge the mortgage over the home.
3. The husband seeks to retain 1 F Street. He argues that he would continue to rent it out but could store his tools of trade on the premises. He provided no evidence of his income or ability to refinance. I was left unpersuaded that he was in a position to achieve this. I am also concerned that the financial position of the parties is precarious, and justice and equity might best be achieved by liquidating this asset without delay. Furthermore, the property alteration proposed will have the benefit of clearing the husband's known liabilities, whilst still providing him with a nest egg on which to build. I will appoint the wife to act as trustee of the sale in the terms proposed in her Minute of Order.
4. The second set of orders proposed by the wife will be adopted but for the percentage division proposed and the orders will require the immediate sale of 1 F Street.
5. The orders will also make provision for the $30,000 held by Best Wilson Buckley Family Law to remain on trust until full compliance with the orders has been achieved. From this account can be paid any and all land tax and capital gains tax outstanding as a result of these orders, and any costs associated with the implementation of these orders, for example the making of K Pty Ltd compliant and wound up.
6. On 30 October 2025, orders were made for the sum of $50,000 to be released to the wife out of the sale proceeds from the Suburb E property. As per the second set of orders proposed by the wife, the remaining funds currently held in the trust account of Best Wilson Buckley Family Law will be released to the wife.
7. The wife already has the following assets and superannuation entitlements in her possession:

(a) Cash in bank accounts ending in #...64 and #...09;

(b) Her jewellery in her possession;

(c) All household contents in her possession (subject to the husband's tools of trade remaining at the 1 F Street property); and

(d) Her superannuation interest in Super Fund 2.

1. The wife will be responsible for any liabilities in her sole name, including the Centrelink debt.
2. The husband already has the following assets and superannuation entitlements in his possession:

(a) His interest in the business trading as C Business;

(b) Motor Vehicle 4 Insurance Funds;

(c) His unregistered Motor Vehicle 1;

(d) His unregistered Motor Vehicle 2;

(e) His jewellery in his possession;

(f) Furniture and tools at R Street;

(g) All household contents in his possession;

(h) His gold and silver bullion;

(i) Cash in bank accounts ending in #...00 and #...09; and

(j) His superannuation interest in Super Fund 1.

1. Further to this the husband will receive the Motor Vehicle 3, Motor Vehicle 4 and trailer, pursuant to the second set of orders proposed by the wife.
2. The Self-Managed Superannuation Fund, K Pty Ltd, will be closed and the remaining funds will be transferred to another complying superannuation fund of the husband's choosing.
3. The husband will be responsible for any liabilities in his sole name.
4. All joint bank accounts will be closed upon the sale or transfer of the 2 F Street property with the parties to equally retain any remaining funds.
5. The percentage split is also arrived at on the basis that it brings to an end (and has regard for) all monies that were owing to the wife by the husband in accordance with previous orders of this Court. Those Orders will be discharged.
6. I consider this to be a just and equitable outcome, in percentage and actual terms, consistent with my holistic assessment and weighing of those considerations relating to contributions in s 79(4) and the considerations relating to current and future circumstances in s 79(5) so far as they are relevant.

1. Part VIII of the Act confers power on the Court to make declarations and orders regarding the property interests of parties including in relation to a companion animal.
2. Throughout the proceedings there has been contention between the parties as to who should retain the household dog, B. B is a companion animal as defined by the Act.
3. At the final hearing the husband conceded that B would remain in the household of the mother and children, and I make that order by consent.

1. I therefore make the final orders as set out at the commencement of these reasons, considering it to be just and equitable in the circumstances.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and fifty-one (151) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Beckhouse.