Helmo & August [2025] FedCFamC1F 811 (17 November 2025)

(a) The parties are to sign all selling authorities and necessary documents to enable the Suburb B property to be listed for sale by public auction.

(b) The parties must appoint and instruct a Real Estate Agent and the Wife shall, within 7 days of the default of Order 1, propose three (3) Real Estate Agents in writing to the Husband from which the Husband shall nominate in writing one (1) within five (5) days of receiving the Wife's nominees and in the event the Husband fails to nominate a Real Estate Agent within the specified timeframe, the Wife shall nominate a Real Estate Agent of her choice ("the Real Estate Agent") and the parties are to forthwith appoint the Real Estate Agent.

(c) The parties must appoint and instruct a Solicitor and/or Conveyancer for the sale of the Suburb B property and the Wife shall within 7 days of the default of Order 1, propose three (3) Solicitors/Conveyancers in writing to the Husband from which the Husband shall select in writing one (1) within five (5) days of receiving the Wife's nominees and in the event the Husband fails to nominate a Solicitor or Conveyancer, the Wife shall nominate a Solicitor or Conveyancer of her choice ("the Solicitor or Conveyancer") and the parties are to forthwith appoint the Solicitor or Conveyancer.

(d) The auction date is to be agreed by the parties and failing agreement is to be determined by the Real Estate Agent provided that the first auction is to take place within six (6) weeks of the property being listed for sale.

(e) The Auctioneer, if not a member of the Real Estate Agent's firm, shall be appointed by the parties and failing agreement is to be appointed by the Real Estate Agent.

(f) In the event a prospective purchaser makes a bid on the Suburb B property prior to the proposed date for auction, the parties may agree on a price in writing and sell to such purchaser. In the event the parties cannot agree, then the Suburb B property is to proceed to auction.

(g) The reserve price shall be fixed by written agreement between the parties taking the advice of the Real Estate Agent three (3) business days prior to the auction or such later date as agreed between the parties in writing, and failing agreement, the reserve price will be set per an updated joint valuation obtained by the parties.

(h) In the event that the said reserve price of the Suburb B property is not reached, the parties may negotiate with the highest bidder, or any other bidder present at the said auction or any other interested party in an effort to sell the Suburb B property at a price not less than 95% of the reserve.

(i) In the event contracts for sale of the Suburb B property are not exchanged within seven (7) days of the said auction, or settlement for the sale of the Suburb B property does not occur as set out in the Contract for Sale, then the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to cause the Suburb B property to be resubmitted for sale by public auction with the Real Estate Agent at least every six (6) weeks in accordance with this Order until the property is sold, and the reserve price shall, unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, reduce by five percent (5%) upon each successive auction.

1. Upon settlement of the sale of the Suburb B property, the parties shall do all acts and things to cause the proceeds of sale to be distributed in the following manner and priority:-

(a) In payment of any advertising, market, auction expenses or Real Estate Agent's fees and commissions and other expenses associated with the sale of the Suburb B property;

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

(c) In payment of legal costs and disbursements of the sale;

(d) In payment to the Husband of such sum as may be outstanding under Order 1;

(e) In payment of the sum of $57,293.73 to D School; and

(f) In payment to the Wife of the remaining balance.

1. From the date of the making of these Orders and pending settlement of the Suburb B property:-

(a) The wife be restrained from further encumbering the Suburb B property; and

(b) The Wife shall meet all expenses in relation to the Suburb B property, until the settlement date.

1. The wife shall co-operate in every way with the agent including (without limiting the generality of the foregoing):

(a) making the Suburb B property available to the agent;

(b) allowing inspections of the property at all reasonable times requested by the agent;

(c) doing or saying anything or nothing to hinder or prevent a sale being effected; and

(d) signing all documents requested by the agent in relation to the listing for sale.

1. This Order operates as an irrevocable authority provided by the Wife to the Real Estate Agent and Solicitor/Conveyancer managing the sale of the Suburb B property in respect of the following:

(a) To provide any and all information in relation to the sale of the Suburb B property to the Husband upon request by the Husband or his legal representative;

(b) To include the Husband and his solicitors on the record with copies of all emails and other correspondence sent by them to the Wife as if they were acting for the parties jointly if each of them was registered as an owner on title.

1. The Wife indemnify the Husband and keep him indemnified in respect of any liability to D School.
2. Except as otherwise provided for herein, the Wife shall retain, to the exclusion of the Husband:-

(a) All furniture, jewellery and other chattels currently in her possession, custody or control;

(b) Any funds standing to her credit in any Bank, Credit Union or Building Society account

(c) Any shares in any public or private company;

(d) Any interests in any superannuation fund, pension or retirement account in which she has an entitlement;

(e) Any motor vehicle registered in her name;

(f) All and any leave or long-service, or any other employment benefits or entitlements; and

(g) All other property (real or personal) and financial resources in the name or control of the Wife.

1. Except as otherwise provided for herein, the Husband shall retain, to the exclusion of the Wife:-

(a) All furniture, jewellery and other chattels currently in his possession, custody or control;

(b) Any funds standing to his credit in any Bank, Credit Union or Building Society account;

(c) Any shares in any public or private company;

(d) Any interests in any superannuation fund, pension or retirement account in which he has an entitlement, except as set out in these Orders;

(e) Any motor vehicle registered in his name;

(f) All and any leave or long-service, or any other employment benefits or entitlements; and

(g) All other property (real or personal) and financial resources in the name or control of the Husband.

(a) The Husband and Wife remain liable for any debts in his or her sole name at the date of these Orders;

(b) 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, including any tax liabilities which may arise now and in the future in respect of any tax returns lodged on behalf of the Wife or any entity in which she has an interest or in respect of any transactions pursuant to these Orders; and

(c) 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, including any tax liabilities which may arise now and in the future in respect of any tax returns lodged on behalf of the Husband or any entity in which he has an interest or in respect of any transactions pursuant to these Orders.

1. Except as otherwise provided for herein, each the Husband and Wife release the other from all debts, loans or liabilities owed from one to the other.
2. Both parties do all acts and things and execute all documents, authorities and writings as are necessary to give effect to all or any of these Orders.
3. In the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to these Orders, then the Registrar of the Court be appointed pursuant to Section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to execute such deed or instrument in the name of the defaulting party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instrument.

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

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

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

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

1. This is an application for property adjustment at the conclusion of a de facto relationship which commenced when the parties started cohabitation in 2013 and concluded when the parties separated on a final basis on 4 December 2021. The applicant de facto husband ("the husband") seeks property adjustment orders. The respondent de facto wife ("the wife") seeks orders to dismiss the husband's property adjustment application; the effect of which would be that each party retain the assets in his or her own name.
2. The proceedings were not reached in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) and could not be accommodated until June 2026. Accordingly, the matter was transferred to this Court to enable the hearing of the financial aspect of the matter. If judicial resources become available, the parties' parenting matter will be allocated on short notice.
3. To give context to what follows, it is useful to set out the Joint Balance Sheet adopted by the parties.

ANZ Account ...19 @ 2.10.2025 held on trust for X & Y

Unpaid school fees outstanding to D School as @ 7.8.2025

Maternal grandparents financial support of the wife

1. The most significant asset in the case is a property in the wife's name at C Street, Suburb B ("the Suburb B property").
2. The wife initially opened her case by submitting that the Suburb B property should be excluded from consideration such that there was "no property" to be adjusted and the husband's application should be dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Minute of Order proposed by the wife was to the effect that each party should retain assets in his or her name and the wife would indemnify the husband against the children's independent school fees (those which are outstanding and, in her counsel's oral submissions, those which may be incurred in the future). In the alternative, the wife's Minute of Order provided for sale of the Suburb B property and a payment to the husband of $300,000. The Husband sought that the net assets of the parties be divided such that the wife receive 65% and he receive 35% (inclusive of his superannuation entitlements).
3. The matters which require adjudication are as follows:

(a) How should advances to the wife, by her parents, be treated for the purpose of determining the net assets of the parties or either of them?

(b) What is the status of a promissory note executed by the wife?

(c) Should the car in the husband's possession be considered his asset or financial resource?

(d) Is family violence relevant?

(e) How should the Court treat the monies which the husband owes family members?

(f) Should the Court adopt an asset-by-asset approach?

(g) Whether the Court adopts an asset-by-asset approach or a global approach, what weight should be given to the wife's contributions by way of trust distributions?

(h) How should the parties' respective non-financial contributions be assessed?

(i) What are the parties' respective current and future financial circumstances?

1. The husband had minimal assets at the commencement of the parties' cohabitation.
2. The wife's assets at about the time of cohabitation included property in the United States of America ("USA") with a value of USD455,000, an interest as beneficiary of the Ms August Irrevocable Trust, and an interest as beneficiary of the Ms August Trust (worth approximately USD124,000). The wife's American attorney represented by letter dated 17 December 2013 (Exhibit 3) that the net assets of the wife as at 17 December 2013 (including inheritance yet to be received) were USD2,517,000.

1. The trust deed was in evidence (Exhibit 1) and indicates that the net income of the trust was to be distributed to the wife each year. In addition, the trustee could make distributions of capital "for the health, education, maintenance, travel and support" of the wife or her children.
2. The wife was born in 1975. She became entitled to a payment of one third of the principal of the trust estate at age 35 unless she refused same. The date of accrual of that entitlement was in 2010. It is not plain whether the wife took one third of the principal at that stage or not. A similar provision applied at age 45 and would have applied had the trust continued at age 55. The trust was established with two cash deposits from the wife's grandparents which totalled USD22,000. It appears that the corpus of the trust grew such that it was able to make significant distributions to the wife. Exhibit 3 detailed USD500,000 of trust assets as at 17 December 2013 and anticipation of between USD650,000-710,000 to be received by the trust in 2014 as an inheritance from the wife's grandmother. The trust also had a 32.0524% interest in J LLC, the value of which was said to USD1,438,000.
3. The husband's income throughout the parties' relationship was directed to payment of the parties' expenses. I accept that the wife had a greater ability to make financial contributions and did in fact make greater financial contributions, almost exclusively from her trust assets.

1. In 2013, the wife acquired an interest in the Suburb B property. She obtained a mortgage in her sole name. The wife paid for the deposit and met the costs of the stamp duty.
2. Prior to the purchase, the parties discussed acquiring a property, and they agree that the husband said he was not in a position to contribute financially. A buyers' agent was engaged, the wife said in an email to the husband, to "help us find our own home". The evidence is that the purchase occurred and the parties discussed a joint plan to occupy the Suburb B property.
3. The mortgage in the wife's name was with F Company. The evidence is that mortgage payments were met by the wife.
4. The evidence suggests that the wife had assets in her own name in the USA and, as discussed above, was also the beneficiary of the Ms August Irrevocable Trust. This trust was established on 11 July 2003. The trustee of the trust was the wife's uncle, Mr K.
5. The wife's affidavit said:

I exchanged on the [Suburb B] property in [...] 2013, about six months after we began cohabitating. I completed purchase in [...] of 2014 for approximately $1,300,000. The title of the property is in my sole name. The purchase was funded by a large down payment from my US. trust that had received an inheritance from my grandmother, and a non-bank loan for the balance. I was only able to do this due to the exchange rate.

1. After cross-examination, I have some doubt that the wife's account is accurate. However, it is not material because there is no doubt that the funds which were applied to the purchase were a contribution by the wife or on her behalf.
2. In February 2018 the mortgage secured over the Suburb B property was discharged. The funds to discharge the mortgage came from the wife's parents.
3. The wife's father gave evidence that he was concerned about the way in which his daughter was exhausting the funds in her trust and took financial advice about how he (and his wife) could assist their daughter. The financial advice received concerned the high interest rate she was paying on the mortgage over the Suburb B property. To address this issue the wife's parents advanced funds to retire the mortgage over the Suburb B property. At the time of the advance, a lawyer in the USA prepared a promissory note which was executed by the wife. The promissory note acknowledged the wife's indebtedness to her parents in respect of USD517,113.35.
4. The terms of the promissory note were as follows:

s 1. ACCRUAL OF INTEREST: INTEREST RA TE: PAYMENTS

(a) Interest shall accrue on the outstanding principal balances under this Note from the date hereof until the Maturity Date at the rate of two and 18/l00ths percent (2.18%) per annum (the "Applicable Rate"). If Borrower should fail to repay this Note in full by the Maturity Date. then interest at an annual rate equal to the Applicable Rate plus five percent (5 .0%) per annum (the "Default Rate") shall accrue on the outstanding principal balance under this Note from the Maturity Date until this Note is repaid in full.

(b) The entire unpaid principal balance of this Note, together with all interest accrued but unpaid thereon, shall be due and payable on the ' ·Maturity Date ", which shall be the sooner of:

(i) January 31, 2027; or

(ii) Thirty (30) days after the occurrence of a full or partial sale or transfer of that certain real property owned by the Borrower located at and commonly described as [C Street], [Suburb B], NSW [...], Australia.

(c) All payments under this Note (other than payments of late charges) shall be first applied to interest and the remainder to principal.

(d) Interest under this Note shall be computed -based on a year of three hundred and sixty five (365) days and paid for the actual number of days elapsed.

1. An amended promissory note was signed by the wife on 1 June 2020. The figure said to have been the subject of the promise was USD543,839.31. While it is not expressly addressed in the evidence, I infer that the increased figure may be referrable to interest which had accrued on the funds advanced between 31 January 2018 and 1 June 2020.
2. The wife said the second promissory note secured a line of credit of up to USD200,000. There is no evidence to support that conclusion.
3. The new repayment terms under the amended promissory note were as follows:

s 1. ACCRUAL OF INTEREST: INTEREST RA TE: PAYMENTS

(a) Interest shall accrue on the outstanding principal balances under this Note from the date hereof until the Maturity Date at the rate of one and 1/l00ths percent (1.01%) per annum (the "Applicable Rate"). If Borrower should fail to repay this Note in full by the Maturity Date. then interest at an annual rate equal to the Applicable Rate plus five percent (5.0%) per annum (the "Default Rate") shall accrue on the outstanding principal balance under this Note from the Maturity Date until this Note is repaid in full.

(b) The entire unpaid principal balance of this Note, together with all interest accrued but unpaid thereon, shall be due and payable on the "Maturity Date", which shall be the sooner of:

(i) June 1, 2050; or

(ii) Thirty (30) days after the occurrence of a full or partial sale or transfer of that certain real property owned by the Borrower located at and commonly described as [C Street], [Suburb B], NSW [...], Australia.

(c) All payments under this Note (other than payments of late charges) shall be first applied to interest and the remainder to principal.

(d) Interest under this Note shall be computed -based on a year of three hundred and sixty five (365) days and paid for the actual number of days elapsed.

1. The Suburb B property is essentially a block of land with a building façade. Accordingly, it was not inhabited by the parties (or any other person) during the relationship or since, and any expenses associated with holding the property were met by the wife. While a development application and architectural plans were obtained in 2014, no works were undertaken. The affidavit material does not make plain why this did not occur. When the architect sent the plans to the wife by email on 10 April 2014, she forwarded them to the husband with the comment "Our plans!". A 25 January 2019 text message from the wife to the husband suggests that the delay may be explained by a lack of income. The message reads: "Ok so if you can get yourself more work this semester we can break ground on our home within 6 months." I find that at least until that date, it remained the intention of the parties to develop and occupy this property.

1. The wife says she owes her parents $900,000. The husband challenges the existence, enforceability and quantum of this amount, and in any event, says that given its inter-familial nature the Court could properly disregard it when reaching a conclusion about the net assets of the parties available for adjustment.
2. I accept that the evidence is not adequate to the task of determining what amount may be outstanding under the promissory note. The wife's counsel accepted that absent any evidence calculating interest, the amount claimed as owing may not be able to be calculated with any more precision than the figure in the amended promissory note of USD543,839.31 (or AUD829,899 at the current agreed exchange).
3. I accept that the funds were advanced by the wife's parents. I am also satisfied on the basis of the evidence of the wife and her father, Mr L, that the promissory note was executed contemporaneously with the advance.
4. I find that Mr L's evidence was consistent and he made appropriate concessions. I accept that the funds which were advanced to retire the wife's mortgage were treated differently by the wife's parents from any other funds which they provided. The wife's parents have sent the wife substantial amounts by way of gift. The fact that formal documentation was prepared and amended places these funds in a separate category. I accept that they were genuinely treated by the wife and her parents as a loan.
5. A separate issue arises about the terms of the loan. I accept that under the terms of the amended promissory note, absent a sale of the Suburb B property, the wife's parents had no recourse for return of their funds before 2050. However, at the hearing the wife gave evidence of an intention to sell the Suburb B property in the near future.
6. The husband's counsel submitted that it is not clear that the wife's parents will require repayment even in the event of a sale of the Suburb B property. I accept it is possible that the wife's parents may allow the wife to retain the sale proceeds without repayment to them (or may subsequently gift or loan money to the wife should she return their capital to them). While the wife's father said he expected the wife would return the funds if he and his wife required them, he gave no evidence that he presently requires those funds.
7. I am persuaded that the markedly different treatment of these funds from any other funds advanced by the wife's parents warrants an acknowledgment that these funds were in fact loaned (on generous terms). I therefore propose to include the sum of AUD829,899 as a liability in the balance sheet. I will return to the question of whether the wife has a legitimate expectation of further funds from her family later in these reasons.

1. The husband has borrowed money from his mother and sister. I find that he does in fact owe those funds to his relatives. In reaching that conclusion, I take into account the formality of the documentation. I also take into account the fact that the husband has made periodic repayments of the capital.
2. I do not propose to include the loans as liabilities in the joint balance sheet since the evidence (Exhibits 19 and 23) make plain that the funds have been applied to legal fees and disbursements. I do however recognise that the husband will have an ongoing obligation to make repayments under the terms of these loans.
3. With the agreement of the parties, I propose to exclude from the balance sheet items with a NIL or negligible balance. Accordingly, I find that the assets, liabilities and superannuation of the parties available for adjustment as between them are:

ANZ Account ...19 @ 2.10.2025 held on trust for X & Y

Unpaid school fees outstanding to D School as @ 7.8.2025

Maternal grandparents financial support of the wife

1. The wife submitted that the Court would adopt an asset-by-asset approach which would see the Suburb B property in one pool and all other items in a separate pool. If I were to assent to this approach, the Suburb B property and the liability incurred when the mortgage was paid out would form the net assets in that separate pool.
2. I accept that it is permissible to adopt an asset-by-asset approach to the assessment of what orders would be just and equitable.
3. There are two factors which make such an approach arguable in this case: the first is that the Suburb B property was acquired solely with funds of one party and is unimproved such that it has increased in value with the real estate market and not as a consequence of any act by the parties. The second is that the parties kept relatively separate finances.
4. Against those factors, the parties were in a relationship for a period of around 8 years during which they both made substantial contributions, discussed below. Each of the parties spent some time during the relationship studying. Of the husband and wife, the husband was the only party who made financial contributions from his personal exertion earnings. From late 2016, the parties made contributions as parents to their twins.
5. The authorities establish the principle that contributions need not have any connection to any particular interest in property owned by either of the parties: Shaw & Shaw (1989) FLC 92‑030; Ashton & Ashton [1986] FamCA 20; (1986) FLC 91-777; Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154; (2012) 50 Fam LR 244 ("Dickons"). In Jabour & Jabour [2019] FamCAFC 78; (2019) FLC 93-898 at [61] the Full Court cited with approval the Full Court in Dickons:

In Dickons v Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154; (2012) 50 Fam LR 244 the Court expressly rejected the notion that there must be a relationship between contributions and what they produced in terms of property saying:

1. As is plain from earlier decisions of this Court, regard must be had to the use made of contributions of various types so as to compare the contributions made by each of the parties during the course of, and over the length of, their relationship (see, for example, In the Marriage of Pierce (1998) FLC 92-844). But that is an entirely different proposition to, as it were, causally linking contributions with their asserted financial "product" or "value". The former recognises that the nature, form and extent of contributions made by each of the parties might differ; the latter suggests that the absence of a causal link counts as no contribution at all.

1. In a case such as this where I have found both parties have made contributions (financial and non-financial) including parenting contributions both during and since separation, it is not just and equitable to in effect isolate the most significant asset of the parties as one against which those contributions cannot be measured.
2. In Fields & Smith [2015] FamCAFC 57; (2015) FLC 93-638 at [101] the Full Court (Bryant CJ and Ainslie-Wallace J) cited with approval the following statement by Fogarty J in Waters & Jurek (1995) FLC 92‑635:

In most marriages, there is a division or roles, duties and responsibilities between the parties. As part of their union, the parties choose to live in a way which will advance their interests - as individuals and as a partnership. The parties make different contributions to the marriage, which the law recognizes cannot simply be assessed in monetary terms or to the extent that they have financial consequences. Homemaker contributions are to be given as much weight as those of the primary breadwinner.

On separation, the partnership, and the division of roles and responsibilities which it produced, come to an end. Individually, the parties are left largely in the personal situations that the marriage has assigned to them. However, the world outside the marriage does not recognize some of the activities that within the marriage used to be regarded as valuable contributions. Home-maker contributions, for example, are no longer financially equal to those of the breadwinner. Post-separation, the party who assumed the less financially rewarded responsibilities of the marriage is at an immediate disadvantage. Yet that party often cannot simply turn to more financially rewarding activities. Often, opportunities to do so are no longer open or, if they are, time is required before they can be accessed and acted upon.

When the marriage ends, especially where that marriage has been a long one, one cannot separate the parties as individuals from the people they became in the context of the marriage relationship, and the allocation of roles, duties and responsibilities which it entailed.

...

An order under s. 79 would be unjust and inequitable in its operation if it failed to address the manner in which the value of the parties' roles, adopted in the course of, and for the purposes of the marriage, can be altered by the fact of separation. Those roles can be instantaneously converted into liabilities. The equality of the parties' positions is terminated.

This Court values different kinds of contributions of the parties' equally while the marriage subsists. It would be inconsistent with the equality which that position recognizes not to take into account the transformation which the termination of the relationship results in, at least in terms of the capacity for present and future income generation.

1. The wife has a qualification and until 2020 held an industry accreditation. Her affidavit says: "I made repeated and genuine efforts to secure employment in the [...] industry." The wife did not secure employment in the industry. While she asserts that her efforts were sabotaged by the husband, this proposition was not squarely put to him and I cannot make a finding that he was responsible for her failure to obtain employment.
2. The wife did not earn personal exertion income during the relationship.
3. The husband was working in retail as a casual employee when the parties met. He supported himself from this paid employment. When he commenced to reside with the wife, he remained working in retail and continued his studies. The wife's affidavit says he resigned after the birth of the parties' children, but I find that he did not resign and in fact commenced parental leave. The wife signed a statutory declaration indicating that the husband would be the primary carer of the parties' twins to support the husband's application for unpaid parental leave.
4. I accept the husband's financial contributions were dwarfed by those of the wife. However, I reject the evidence of the wife that he did not contribute his earnings to the family. The wife gave evidence:
   1. [Mr Helmo] directed any income he earned toward his personal obligations, including paying off his student loans in full before separation. He placed his academic career and financial self interest above his responsibility to contribute to the needs of his children and household.
5. In reliance upon the husband's Higher Education Loan Program statement (Exhibit 12) I find that the husband made no payments in reduction of his student loan until after the parties separated.
6. The wife's evidence is given in definitive terms (and repeated elsewhere in her affidavit, [617]) in circumstances where it does not align with objective evidence. This inconsistency reflects poorly on the wife's credit.

1. The wife's affidavit acknowledged no contribution of any significance by the husband throughout the parties' relationship. A fair reading of the wife's affidavit is that the wife asserted that all but the most minor homemaking and parenting tasks had been undertaken by her.
2. The parties lived together for about 3 years and 9 months before the birth of their children in 2016.
3. The wife was asked about contemporaneous public representations by her which were at odds with her affidavit. For example, on 21 September 2013 the wife's said, on social media:

[Mr Helmo] is a champion. He did such an awesome job of keeping the house from going feral while I was gone that I'm having difficulty finding things to clean and tidy.

1. Other social media posts referred to the husband undertaking laundry or cooking dinner. The post on 28 June 2017 by the wife shared a link to a post entitled "One in four Australian men do no housework. Not a single thing. Nada. Nothing". That post said: "We know women still do the bulk of the unpaid work. We didn't know this." In reposting this link the wife added her own comment: "Mine does housework! And is awesome!" At this point the parties were the parents of around six month old twins. In a post on 9 January 2019 the wife said "It hasn't always been easy, but I couldn't do this parenting thing without you. You're a wonderful dad..."
2. The wife made some concessions in cross-examination about household tasks and parenting chores undertaken by the husband. I find that her affidavit underplays the contributions of the husband. I accept the husband's evidence about his contributions as consistent with the wife's public representations and unaffected by cross-examination. As a consequence, I find that the husband made significant non-financial contributions as homemaker and parent. The wife also made non-financial contributions which continued after separation.
3. The financial contributions by or on behalf of the wife and her non-financial contributions significantly outweigh the financial and non-financial contributions of the husband such that I find that the contribution-based entitlements are appropriately recognised as 80% wife and 20% husband.
4. The husband sought an adjustment pursuant to s 90SM(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") to the contribution-based entitlements, while the wife sought that there be no further adjustment.

1. The wife's affidavit contains assertions of family violence as against the husband. A small number of incidents of physical violence in the period 2020-2022 are included in the wife's affidavit, expressed in a very general manner. The husband's affidavit says that the wife threatened to make false allegations against him regarding family violence. In circumstances where no allegation was put to the husband (and no submissions were made on behalf of the wife), I am unable to make any finding that s 90SM(5)(a) has application to the facts of this case.

Income and earning capacity of the parties currently and in the future

1. The wife in cross-examination indicated that she had commenced (but not completed) another qualification and commenced (but not completed) a related qualification. She intends to obtain work in the field related to her studies. I find the wife has some capacity to earn income - either following receipt of the qualifications she is pursuing or otherwise.
2. The husband is employed by an education provider. He works full-time and earns $132,314 per annum. He pays child support in accordance with an assessment.

1. In the joint balance sheet, the husband contended that the wife has a financial resource in the sum of about AUD6,000 per week in funds advanced by her parents for the support of the wife and the parties' children.
2. The wife's father gave evidence that he had been providing funds to the wife in that sum. That equates to AUD312,000 on an annual basis which is not subject to income tax. It is not explicitly addressed but I anticipate that some of those funds have been applied to school fees and some have been applied to legal fees. It would be unwise to conclude that the wife will continue to receive $6,000 per week from this source in perpetuity. However, the evidence does permit me to conclude that the wife's family will be a significant financial resource. A financial resource, as the High Court confirmed in Hall v Hall [2016] HCA 23; [2016] 257 CLR 490 at [54] citing Kelly & Kelly (No 2) (1981) FLC 91-108 at 76,803, is:

"...a source of financial support which a party can reasonably expect will be available to him or her to supply a financial need or deficiency."

1. The wife has had significant gifts from her family for many decades and there is no suggestion that her ability to fund her expenses from this source will end.
2. The husband submitted that the nature of the advance to the wife covered by the promissory note is such that the Court would place it in that category of loan which is unlikely to be enforced. I have above found that the funds advanced should be treated as a liability, but I am not precluded from considering that the wife's parents may not ultimately require repayment or may return some or all of the funds to the wife. There is support for that conclusion in the representation which the wife's lawyer made to the Court on 15 May 2024 to the effect that "...it is a personal debt that can be - that's a bit more flexible." I accept that the solicitor for the wife had only recently come onto the record when this representation was made and so, I do not consider it is determinative of the question regarding the terms of the advance.
3. The husband drives a car owned by his sister. I find that this is a modest financial resource enjoyed by the husband at present and in the near future.

Conclusions about current and future financial circumstances

1. The husband has very modest assets and a superannuation entitlement to which he has no present access. He is indebted to and is repaying loans from family members. He has a greater income and earning capacity than the wife (although in due course when the wife completes her study this may no longer be the case).
2. The fact of the wife having access to both her earning capacity (either as a future health professional or in unskilled work) and a financial resource of some significance (when compared to the husband) when taken together with her greater property (s 90SM(5)(c)), each parties' need to provide appropriate housing for the children and the matters in [63] persuade me that a 10 per cent adjustment in the husband's favour is appropriate. That will result in a division of the parties' net assets such that the husband receives 30% and the wife 70%.
3. It is also appropriate for me to make orders which relate to the children's school fees. The children were enrolled in an independent school in circumstances where neither party's income was in any way adequate to meet those fees. While the husband signed the enrolment forms he has never been in a position to meet the fees, and his full-time employment has not altered that position given his other living expenses. The wife wants the children to finish primary school at D School. I am not being asked to make an order about future enrolment - merely the economic consequences of a contract entered into by the parents during the relationship. I cannot make an order altering the terms of that contract, but I can (as the wife's counsel explicitly acknowledged) provide indemnities.
4. The current indebtedness of the parties to the school is $57,293.73. It is appropriate that, as between the parties, the wife indemnify the husband for that debt, and should she choose to continue the children's enrolment she indemnify the husband against any future fees.
5. The effect of those conclusions is that the Suburb B property will likely be sold. I have permitted the wife to retain it in the event that she is able. If it is sold, the proceeds will be applied to the discharge of the debt to D School and in payment of the sum of $393,342 to the husband. The cash payment taken with the husband's assets ($8,830) and superannuation ($163,741) amount to 30 per cent of the net pool. The balance of any sale proceeds is payable to the wife, from which she may honour the terms of the promissory note. There was no superannuation splitting order sought.

I certify that the preceding sixty-seven (67) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Christie.