Kavanagh v Metzger

1. For the purposes of Order 2 above, the Real Estate Agent to act in respect of the sale shall be as agreed by the parties and, failing agreement within 14 days of the date of default, then shall be a Real Estate Agent appointed by the Chair of the Real Estate Institute of NSW or his/her nominee;
2. For the purposes of Order 2 above, the Solicitor to act in respect of the sale shall be as agreed by the parties and, failing agreement within 14 days of the date of default, then shall be a Solicitor appointed by the President of the NSW Law Society or his/her nominee;
3. For the purposes of Order 2 above, the sale price for the B Street properties shall be as agreed between the parties and, failing agreement within 14 days of the date of default, then shall be at a price determined by the Real Estate Agent with carriage of the sale;
4. Pending the sale of the B Street properties the Respondent shall:

(a) Keep the property in good order and repair; and

(b) Co-operate in all reasonable way with requests by real estate agents and/or prospective purchasers including but not limited to:

(i) Providing keys to obtain access;

(ii) Doing all things necessary to facilitate access to the B Street properties property at all reasonable times and facilitating access for inspection without interference;

(iii) Maintaining the B Street properties property in a presentable condition so as to facilitate the sale including but not limited to presenting the property in a neat and tidy condition at all times when the property is subject to inspection;

(iv) Doing all things necessary to facilitate a sale at the earliest possible time and shall refrain from doing or saying anything which has the effect of hindering or preventing an inspection or a sale of the B Street properties being effected.

1. In the event there is not an exchanged Contract for sale for the B Street properties within 3 months of the date of default, then the parties shall forthwith do all things necessary to cause the B Street properties to be sold by public auction at the earliest possible date at a reserve price agreed upon between the parties and failing agreement to be determined by the Real Estate Agent or his/her nominee and on completion of sale, the proceeds of sale shall be disbursed as provided for in Order 2 above save that the parties shall, prior to distribution of proceeds to them personally equally pay and bear as and when they fall due all costs associated with the auction process.
2. In the event the bidding at the auction does not reach the reserve price as determined in accordance with Order 7 above, the parties, or such of them as attends the auction, may negotiate with the highest bidders or any other interested person and effect a sale of the property at a price which is not more than 2 per cent below the reserve price, or at such other price as the parties agree upon in writing.
3. If the B Street properties remains unsold for a period of 12 months from the date of default, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to immediately relist the property for sale by public auction again, on a date nominated by the agent and at such auction, the reserve price shall not be less than 4 per cent below the reserve price of the property unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing.
4. Within 7 days of the date of these Orders the Respondent shall do all things and sign all documents necessary to sign and submit a Notice of Disposal document with Service NSW for Motor Vehicle 1, registration [...].
5. Within 28 days of the date of these Orders, the Applicant shall do all acts and things to discharge the D Bank loan (advanced on 10 April 2019) such that the Respondent's Property 1 at B Street is no longer security for the said loan and that the Applicant indemnify the Respondent with respect to any liability for the said loan.
6. Within 28 days of the date of these Orders, the Applicant shall do all acts and things to transfer his shareholding and any other interest in E Pty Ltd to the Respondent.
7. With 28 days of the date of these Orders the Respondent shall make the following chattels available to the Applicant:

(a) Professional coffee machine;

(b) The Applicant's tools;

(c) Heat sensing and detecting tool;

(d) The Applicant's computer equipment including computer and monitors;

(e) The Applicant's mobile phones (x2); and

(f) Two Square EFTPOS terminals.

1. For the purpose of Order 13 above the Applicant shall provide to the Respondent 7 days' notice of the date he seeks to collect the chattels from the Respondent's residence.
2. In respect of the collection of the chattels, the Applicant's nominee shall attend to collect the chattels.
3. Within 7 days of the date of these Orders, the Respondent is to provide a list of chattels, if any, that she intends to collect from the Applicant as well as a nominated date for collection.
4. Other than as specifically provided for in these Orders, the parties are each solely entitled, to the exclusion of the other, to all other property and financial resources of whatsoever nature and kind in their name, possession or control and to which they are or may become entitled.
5. The Respondent is solely responsible for and shall pay any tax liability or other liability incurred in her sole name or in the name of any entity in which she has an interest and shall indemnify the Applicant and keep him indemnified with respect to any such liability.
6. The Applicant is solely responsible for and shall pay any tax liability or other liability incurred in his sole name or in the name of any entity in which he has an interest and indemnify the Respondent and keep her indemnified with respect to any such liability including but not limited to the F Business entities.
7. The Respondent's Application in a Case filed 7 March 2025 is dismissed.
8. All outstanding applications are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation.

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. The parties seek orders for division of property following the conclusion of their de facto relationship.
2. The applicant is aged 57 years, and the respondent 59 years.
3. The parties were in a de facto relationship from August 2017. The parties agree a separation occurred on 2 May 2021. The respondent maintains a reconciliation from late October or November to December 2021. On either view the relationship was short, of slightly less than four years duration. There are no children of the relationship.

1. The applicant promotes an asset-by-asset approach. He seeks that the respondent pay him $750,000 within 90 days. If she fails to do so, he seeks payment from the sale of the property located at B Street, City C NSW.
2. The respondent opposes the asset-by-asset approach. She seeks the applicant pay her a cash sum which equates to her retaining 40 per cent of the net property pool available for alteration. She wants the applicant to discharge the D Bank loan, so that the respondent's property at Property 1 at B Street is no longer security for the loan. She wants the applicant to transfer to her his shareholding and any other interest in E Pty Ltd. She seeks that the applicant be restrained from attending within 100 metres of the boundaries of Property 2 at B Street and Property 1 at B Street, City C NSW.

1. The parties relied on the documents set out in their Case Outline Documents.
2. Both parties were cross-examined.
3. A number of documents were tendered during the course of the proceedings. I have had regard to that material, as well as the documents relied upon by the parties.

(a) Did the applicant engage in family violence towards the respondent? If yes, did that conduct impact on the respondent's ability to make contributions and on her current and future circumstances?

(b) What was the extent, if any, of alterations made to the respondent's property, and is any remediation of the property required?

(c) How were the loan monies received through a cross-guarantor loan with D Bank applied by the parties?

(d) What is the value of disputed items on the balance sheet?

(e) What adjustment, if any, should be made in relation to contributions?

(f) What adjustment, if any, should be made in relation to the parties' future needs?

1. There is no dispute the parties were in a de facto relationship in NSW, fulfilling the requirements of s 90SD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The hearing took place after 10 June 2025, making the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) applicable.
2. The Court is required to establish existing property interests and liabilities of the parties, and consider whether it is just and equitable to make any order for property adjustment. If the order for division is appropriate the court must identify the parties' contributions, and current and future circumstances.

1. Neither the applicant nor respondent were impressive witnesses. The applicant neither made concessions readily, nor answered questions directly. For example, he gave evidence an email sent to Ms G dated 29 August 2021 was an apology directed to her client, the respondent's neighbour, for previously accepting the respondent's version of events. This was not correct. The email was critical of the respondent: "... a small example of her autocratic behaviour". I accept he provided information adverse to the respondent's interests, to deliberately make mischief between neighbours already in dispute.
2. The respondent similarly had difficulties in making appropriate concessions and directly answering questions. Her evidence was at times in conflict with demonstrated conduct and documentary evidence.
3. I will refer to the veracity of their evidence when relevant to making necessary findings.

1. The parties agree separation occurred on 5 May 2021. There was a violent altercation where the applicant behaved in a threatening manner towards the respondent. He broke her glasses. A provisional ADVO was granted for the protection of the respondent and the applicant was charged with stalk/intimidate with intent to cause fear of physical/mental harm.
2. In November 2021 an ADVO was made against the applicant for the respondent's protection. The order was for a period of 12 months. In February 2022 police charged the applicant with breach ADVO, stalk/intimidate and common assault. The applicant was convicted on the breach and received a two year community corrections order.
3. The respondent contends the parties reconciled between late October and 9 December 2021. This is disputed by the applicant.
4. The applicant commenced these proceedings on 26 October 2021. Both parties engaged legal representation after separation in May 2021. Correspondence from the respondent's solicitor referred to the parties' intention to reconcile. The applicant's solicitors made it clear the applicant had no intention of reconciling. The parties remained living separately.
5. It is uncontroversial at law that separation requires one party to form the view they have separated, act consistently with that view, and advise the other party. The applicant has complied with those requirements. I accept the parties were separated from May 2021.

1. There was issue raised about the applicant's consumption of alcohol. The respondent frequently referred to the applicant as an alcoholic, and that medical conditions have been caused by consumption of alcohol. There is no evidence that supports a finding on either contention.
2. The applicant's evidence is he drinks a quarter to half a 750ml bottle of scotch most days. He did not drink around treatment for cancer from about April 2019 to late 2019. He had surgery in June 2019. Shortly after the initial operation he required further surgery when stitches collapsed, causing internal bleeding. He was treated in an Intensive Care Unit. Thereafter he had chemotherapy, which he says he tolerated well.
3. When cross-examined about his conduct after consuming alcohol the applicant generally answered that he could not remember. This included whether he fell asleep on the floor, urinated himself, or made threatening or derogatory remarks to the respondent.
4. I accept that the applicant's use of alcohol was an issue during the relationship. On any view he consumed large amounts of alcohol. I accept the respondent's evidence that his behaviour was at times threatening and aggressive towards her after consuming of alcohol. He required physical assistance from her at times after drinking to get home, to be cleaned up, to get to bed, and similar matters. In my view it is his use of alcohol, and the impact of that on his behaviour that is significant, not the respondent's lay opinion as to any medical diagnosis.

RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF RECORDING EVIDENCE

1. During the hearing, objection was taken to the admissibility of recordings made by the respondent of the applicant, in relation to comments alleged to have been made demonstrating conduct that would fall within the definition of family violence. I allowed the recordings into evidence, and now provide reasons for that ruling.
2. Objection was taken on two bases by counsel for the applicant. Firstly, that it was illegally obtained pursuant to the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW); secondly that the desirability of admitting the evidence did not outweigh the undesirability of admitting evidence given how it was obtained, whether that be illegally or improperly: s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the evidence contained in the recordings was otherwise before the Court, in that at times during cross-examination, the applicant made a concession that his categorical denials in paragraph 84 of his affidavit were an error. He submits that this must limit the probative value of the recording evidence.
4. The prohibition on the use of a listening device does not apply when a party to the recording makes the recording, and it is reasonably necessary to protect their lawful interests: s 7(3)(b)(i) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW). The respondent made the recording at a time she feared for her safety due to threats by the applicant towards her. The applicant denied making threats and derogatory remarks until the existence of the recording was made clear during cross-examination. I find that it was reasonably necessary for her to make the recordings in support of allegations of family violence. Family violence can be difficult to establish given that it is something that often occurs behind closed doors, with no witnesses. I find that the probative value of having unambiguous evidence on this issue outweighs any impropriety with how it was obtained.

WHETHER THE APPLICANT ENGAGED IN FAMILY VIOLENCE TOWARDS THE RESPONDENT, AND THE IMPACT OF ANY FAMILY VIOLENCE

1. The respondent alleges family violence including verbal abuse and threats, such as coercing her into opening F Business. Her evidence was he frightened her and made her afraid for her safety. She submits her contributions to the relationship were made more arduous as a result of the applicant's conduct.
2. The applicant conceded in cross-examination verbal abuse of the respondent including taunts and some swearing. He conceded at times after consuming alcohol he could not remember what he did, and he may have been abusive.
3. The respondent gave evidence of particular instances of abuse. On 1 May 2021 a friend of the applicant's, Mr H, came to F Business. He spoke with the applicant, who then left. Mr H told the respondent he needed $150,000 to pay people off and was concerned for his safety. He told her, "I'm being followed, the people who are following me are dangerous, they're involved in shootings, drugs and crime. You are not safe to lock up the [business] tonight or any night. These shooters are up the street right now". The respondent was frightened that people involved with Mr H may seek money from her.
4. The applicant returned to the business later that evening, after Mr H left. The parties argued about matters involving Mr H. He said to the respondent, "I am going to take you down to Chinatown and fuck you up. You fucking bitch, you have really done it now". The respondent stayed at her mother's that night. She did not sleep as she was terrified for her safety. In May 2021, a provisional ADVO was made against the applicant for the respondent's protection.
5. The respondent raised with the applicant her concerns about some of his friends and their criminal affiliations. This included Mr H. The applicant made threats to the respondent that he would "bring the boys around to run the joint".
6. After separation there was an incident where the applicant encountered the respondent on the street, and he shouted at her and made threats. The police charged the applicant with breach ADVO, stalk/intimidate and common assault. The applicant was convicted on the breach and received a two year community corrections order.
7. I accept there was family violence by the applicant towards the respondent from at least March 2020 until separation. Following separation family violence by the applicant towards the respondent continued. The applicant conceded threats to the respondent in March 2020 only during cross-examination. The context of the threats was him insisting that the respondent open the business. Separation occurred within days of the incident with Mr H, where I accept the appellant made threats to the respondent.
8. The incidents of violence detailed by the respondent occurred around the time of separation. Looking at the parties' conduct during the relationship a number of aspects of the applicant's conduct impacted on the respondent's contribution. Most significantly was when he was adversely affected by alcohol, to the extent he did not recall his actions. On some occasions, mostly around separation, the applicant verbally abused her when drunk, which caused her fear.
9. The most significant allegation concerning family violence in terms is that the applicant coerced the respondent into opening the small business at the City C property in 2019.
10. The evidence refers to the respondent taking steps required to operate a small business in the City C property from 2013. She swore to that in the first affidavit filed in these proceedings in December 2021, and provided details in the Financial Questionnaire.
11. The respondent completed a Financial Questionnaire on 15 December 2021. She detailed under the heading 'non-financial contributions' work she engaged in between 2017 and 2020, three days each week, to establish F Business. This included:

negotiating with and lobbying other committee members within the Owners Corporation (at the [City C] properties), discussions with [J Council], NSW Heritage officers, and other neighbours to assist in achieving approval for the [F Business] project at a level that would make the small space (at my [City C] properties) viable.

1. I accept that the respondent intended to operate a small business from the premises as a commercial enterprise and took steps to obtain necessary licences and fulfil council requirements to make that happen. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns adversely impacted those plans. After the start of the pandemic there were disputes between the parties about when to open the business, and re-open following lockdowns. The applicant behaved in a coercive and threatening manner towards the respondent during these disputes.
2. K Pty Ltd was started by the respondent in February 2016. The purpose of K Pty Ltd was to develop commercial properties within the City C property. The respondent described it as a "planning entity". She took steps to obtain a food and beverage licence for the premises well before the parties commenced their relationship.
3. The respondent attended a meeting with her accountants and the applicant in February 2018. The use of the City C property was discussed. Her evidence is she was advised operating a business from the premises was not commercially viable. The space could be used on a non-commercial basis. The applicant's evidence is in contrast to this, that he invested funds in the business because it had commercial potential.
4. The respondent argues she never intended to operate the business. During cross-examination she referred frequently to her lack of experience in running a business, and that she wanted to lease the commercial property to a tenant who could complete the fit out and run a business. The applicant's evidence is the respondent did not mention seeking a commercial tenant to develop the premises. Instead, she was engaged in taking steps, including completing the fit out, to open the business. I accept the applicant's version of events. The respondent's Financial Questionnaire and first affidavit filed in these proceedings supports the applicant's case. As stated in her Financial Questionnaire, "I put together the concept, design and brand for [F Business]".
5. The applicant invested considerable amounts of money in the business. I accept he did so wanting the business to start trading as a commercial enterprise. The suggestion by the respondent that the applicant wanted the business to operate as a private, non-commercial enterprise does not sit with the totality of the evidence.
6. The parties had disputes over the operation of the business. There was a disagreement, for example, over disclosures to the ATO about GST declarations.
7. I accept the applicant was concerned at the extent of his investment in a business that was not operating. Despite his initial denials, he conceded during cross-examination making threats to the respondent about opening the business. This happened after it was clear recordings of their conversations from March 2020 were available. I find he was dismissive and disparaging of the respondent in those conversations. He said if she did not open the business she would be "going down to Chinatown". I accept this was intended by him as a threat.
8. I accept that both parties wanted the business to open and trade, although they disagreed about the timing of the opening. The respondent had worked to set up the business over six years, well prior to the relationship. The start of the pandemic impacted the viability of the business. I accept the respondent did not want to open the business in April 2020, but was pushed to do so by the respondent. I accept this was family violence in that it was coercive and threatening behaviour by the applicant towards the respondent which caused her fear.

WHAT WAS THE EXTENT, IF ANY, OF ALTERATIONS MADE TO THE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY, AND IS ANY REMEDIATION OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRED?

1. The respondent says she cannot sell Property 2 at B Street or Property 1 at B Street without first carrying out substantial remediation works to return each property to compliance with the relevant DA for the property. It is her evidence that she would not have made the structural changes she did to the properties on her own initiative. She did so because the applicant coerced her to do so.
2. This argument is inconsistent with the evidence of steps taken by her since 2013. She pursued setting up the premises as a business prior to the parties' relationship.
3. The respondent organised and directed the work done by tradespeople on the premises at City C. I accept there was later damage caused by the removal of a coffee machine. There is no evidence of the costs of repair from any damage. There is no evidence of what work is required, nor the costs of the work to remediate the property as sought by the respondent.
4. The respondent has not attempted to re-open the business after COVID-19. Her argument about remediation is inconsistent with her case that she had always wanted to lease the property to a commercial tenant to operate the business. She could have done so since separation and has taken no steps to do so.
5. The parties provided a balance sheet by agreement electronically after the conclusion of submissions. I have marked the balance sheet as Exhibit 13.

THE VALUE OF DISPUTED ITEMS ON THE BALANCE SHEET

CBA account ending #67 (H value - as of 14 January 2022) (W - account has been closed for more than 2 years)

D Bank account #42 (as of 30 June 2025 per statement)

Monies owing to Grant Thornton (Single Expert Fees - Respondent's share)

1. There is a dispute over the value of the applicant's shares in Q Pty Ltd. He has held shares in Q Pty Ltd since 1992. At that time four separate companies existed, which merged to form Q Pty Ltd in 1999. He is the second largest shareholder and holds 679,411 shares (Exhibit 8, page 6). This represents about nine per cent of the total shares in Q Pty Ltd. He receives weekly dividends of $6,662 on his shareholding.
2. The Estate of Mr R holds 65 per cent of the available shares. He was a founder of the company and friend of the applicant. He died unexpectedly in 2024.
3. The applicant was previously a director of the company. He ceased that role in about 2006. He continued to work in a development role for the company. During the COVID-19 pandemic his role changed to a consultant on a contract, which has continued to date. He works less hours for less income. He is not an office holder in the company.
4. The shareholding remained unaltered during the course of the parties' short relationship. No shares were sold or acquired. The shares paid dividends used by the applicant.
5. Mr Box undertook a valuation of the shares. He provided a draft report due to difficulties in obtaining information from Q Pty Ltd. Pages 4 to 7 of his report (Exhibit 8) detail the information he sought and steps he took unsuccessfully to acquire it.
6. The respondent is highly critical of the applicant not assisting Mr Box to receive the necessary information. The respondent complains the applicant could have contacted office holders; he would have "sway" with members of management to urge them to give information to Mr Box. The applicant's evidence is he spoke to the chairman about the preparation of the report for these proceedings. When information was not forthcoming orders were made granting leave to the applicant to issue subpoena on 26 August 2024. Mr Box advised the parties that Q Pty Ltd requested a subpoena. The applicant issued a subpoena to Q Pty Ltd on 26 September 2024. Q Pty Ltd filed an Objection to the Subpoena on 14 October 2024. On 5 November 2024 orders were made by consent fixing the costs for Q Pty Ltd of compliance with the subpoena at $21,500. The applicant was required to meet those costs. There is no suggestion he did not.
7. I do not accept the evidence supports a finding the applicant was in a position to cause Q Pty Ltd to co-operate with Mr Box. He had no role within the company structure. The applicant took steps to seek the information required through the court processes available.
8. The applicant swore a Financial Statement on 26 October 2021. He valued the Q Pty Ltd shares at $13,000,000. He recorded the value of shares held in L Pty Ltd as E $30,000. The value ascribed to Q Pty Ltd was not denoted as an estimate. His evidence is he attributed a value to the shares at what he thought was at "the higher end", as he did not want to be criticised for underestimating the value for the purposes of the litigation.
9. I accept that Mr Box was unable to complete his valuation because information required was not provided. On the information available he gave a range of value between $7,951,000 and $9,276,000. The applicant accepts that the higher figure should be used for these proceedings at $9,276,000.
10. The respondent contends no reliance should be placed on the draft report. Instead, the court should have regard to the value in the applicant's initial Financial Statement. This broadly accords with multiplying the number of shares by the price shares were last sold for by the company at $18.50.
11. I do not accept that taking the approach urged by the respondent is a reasonable way of valuing the shares held by the applicant. As is clear from the draft report at pages 4 to 7, the process of valuation cannot be so simplistically reduced.
12. I accept it is appropriate the higher end of the range referred to by Mr Box should be used. Ultimately this is not of great moment, as I accept that the shares should be in a separate pool.
13. This is not a circumstance where both parties made a myriad of contributions over the course of a long marriage through employment, raising children and the like. The parties were in a de facto relationship for three months less than four years. The applicant has held the shares since 1992, some 25 years prior to cohabitation. There was no significant acquisition nor sale of shares during the course of the relationship. I accept that in the circumstances of a short relationship between the parties, where there are no children of the relationship, it is appropriate to regard the shares as a separate pool: Amero & Croft [2010] FamCAFC 118.

Items 4 to 7: K Pty Ltd, F Trust, E Pty Ltd and K Trust

1. The entities formed to set up and operate the Business from the City C property are listed on the Balance sheet comprising K Pty Ltd, F Trust, E Pty Ltd and K Trust. The applicant refers to the value as not known, the applicant says nil. No case was advanced nor submission made as to the value of the Trusts and companies. There is no evidence that assets are held by any of the entities. I accept that a nil value is appropriate.

1. The respondent's Financial Statement filed 20 October 2025 refers to $10,800. The balance sheet refers to $10,000. The Respondent was not cross-examined about this item and no submissions were made about it. It goes in on the balance sheet at $10,000.

1. The applicant asserts a tax liability in the amount of $95,683. There was no cross-examination of the applicant on this issue and no submissions were made about it. I accept the figure at $95,683.

Item 32: Loans to the respondent from family members

1. The respondent refers to personal loans from her son and brother of $200,000 each. No evidence is provided in support of these loans. Neither of those people are on affidavit. There is no evidence from the respondent about requirements for repayment, nor any other details.
2. The respondent's evidence is that she is in contact with both her son and brother. She provided no explanation for why they were not on affidavit. Absent evidence in support of the loans I propose removing the loans from the balance sheet.

1. The applicant has not provided no evidence of this asserted liability. It should be removed from the balance sheet.

1. This is a relationship late in the working lives of both parties. The Q Pty Ltd shares have been held for 25 years by the applicant, without change. This continued through the parties relationship where no shares were sold or purchased. There was no active maintenance of the shares requiring expenditure of money or effort by the applicant or the respondent. Dividends were paid to the applicant during the relationship by Q Pty Ltd with no change to the capital holding. I accept that the respondent has made no contribution to the acquisition nor maintenance of the shares.
2. There is no cogent evidence of the amount of superannuation held by the applicant at the date of cohabitation. No submissions were made specifically about treatment of superannuation.
3. Superannuation held by the applicant has been contributed to throughout his working life. He made contributions to it during the relationship as he had prior to the relationship. An appropriate consideration of this asset can be made as part of a pool with other assets and liabilities of the parties. It does not fall into the same category as the Q Pty Ltd shares given contributions made to the superannuation during the relationship.
4. To go through each of the assets and liabilities separately has a risk of unfairness in considering the parties positions, given the joint enterprise they conducted and the various contributions made by each to that enterprise. That the enterprise was ultimately unsuccessful is a burden for both parties, not one to bear solely. This would be the case had the enterprise flourished, that both would have benefited.
5. I accept that it is appropriate to remove the Q Pty Ltd shares from consideration as part of the pool of assets. It has characteristics different to any other asset held by either party, being held without change for 25 years, and required no maintenance nor payments.

1. Both parties agree it is just and equitable to make property adjustment orders, although not the particular orders the other seeks. I accept it is just and equitable to adjust the property interests.

1. The parties were in a relationship of slightly less than four years. On any view it was a short relationship. There are no children of the relationship.
2. The initial contributions of the parties are not controversial. The applicant came into the relationship with the shareholding in Q Pty Ltd, which remained intact at the conclusion of the relationship. He had an income in the order of $750,000 per annum. He had superannuation entitlements.
3. The applicant made significant contributions through his wage and dividend payments from the Q Pty Ltd shares. The parties lived together in an apartment where all rent, rates and utilities were paid by the applicant.
4. The respondent holds the property at City C on a 75-year lease from J Council. It has an agreed value of $7,000,000. She acquired the property prior to the parties' relationship. From 2013 the respondent took steps to obtain approval from the Council for operation of a small business from commercial premises at the front of the building. She used the two properties as holiday rentals. Throughout the parties' relationship the respondent retained that rental income.
5. K Pty Ltd was set up by the respondent in February 2016 to develop commercial properties within the City C property.
6. The respondent agrees the applicant paid $300,000 into the K Pty Ltd account for the fit out of the space as a business after the meeting in February 2018. The source of the funds was a $1.3 million special dividend from Q Pty Ltd, received in January 2018. The applicant at times put that figure at $377,000. I accept that it was not less than $300,000. He then paid a further $120,000 towards a coffee machine, televisions, IT equipment and cameras. He also used his expertise to set up the IT equipment, and security within the Business.
7. The respondent controls K Pty Ltd. She used the funds of this entity to establish F Business as she saw fit, and engaged tradespeople to carry out work. All of the shares in K Pty Ltd are held by F Trust.
8. The parties set up a company, E Pty Ltd, in 2018. The respondent is the director and the parties each hold one ordinary share. E Pty Ltd is the trustee for K Trust and does not trade.
9. In July 2019 the parties obtained cross-guarantor loans from D Bank. The applicant obtained a $300,000 loan for purchase of Motor Vehicle 2. The respondent obtained a loan of $1.5 million as part of refinancing previous loans, to consolidate debt. There is no dispute $300,000 was deposited into an account in the respondent's sole name. The applicant used funds he had available to purchase the motor vehicle. The $300,00 was retained for use by the respondent. She used the money for costs related to setting up F Business, meeting loans in her name secured over the City C property, and joint living expenses.
10. The business opened in April 2020 and closed in May 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions. The business was able to trade on a "[limited capacity]" basis at times thereafter. It opened again in December 2020. The business did not flourish. I accept the impact of COVID-19 and consequent lockdowns were devastating on businesses generally, and this business in particular.
11. I accept both parties contributed to the setup of the business. The applicant made significant contributions in excess of $400,000 from the Q Pty Ltd dividends towards the fit out costs of the business. He provided a further $300,000 from the D Bank loan. Additionally, he made repayments on the D Bank loan. The minimum repayment required was $1,443 per month. He paid $3,450 per week into a joint account to pay down the debt.
12. The respondent changed the terms of the loan to interest only without the applicant's knowledge. $2,000 per week was used for repayments on the D Bank loan, and otherwise the respondent used the funds to meet expenses.
13. Although the respondent referred to the Business as a "non-viable commercial enterprise" throughout her evidence, she was responsible for the fit out. She organised the tradespeople and the layout of the business. The respondent worked hard in the business when it opened. I accept that she was committed to making the business work as a commercial enterprise.
14. The applicant set up the computer system used in the business and maintained it. He installed and supplied Radio frequency transmitters in the property. The applicant made indirect financial contributions by completing repairs and maintenance on the City C property.
15. The respondent's position that the business was opened as a personal project for the applicant makes no sense of the investment of time and money by the respondent and the applicant. The respondent worked hard over a number of years to set up the business, and sought to make it a success. The business failed when COVID-19 restrictions prevented the operation of the business.
16. COVID-19 restrictions also impacted the holiday rentals conducted by the respondent, which were left vacant.
17. I accept in early 2020 the applicant was harassing the respondent to open the business. That is clear from communication between the parties. There is no evidence of threats or duress applied by the applicant prior to that with respect to opening the business.
18. The respondent had no income from March 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions and closures. Without the financial assistance of the applicant, she would have been unable to maintain the City C property and pay her expenses.
19. The business was unsuccessful. These are proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). These are not proceedings where one party to a commercial enterprise seeks compensation from the other on the failure of the enterprise. The business was a joint enterprise in which each party lost money. They both made significant financial and non financial contributions to the business.
20. Money borrowed by the applicant was used by the respondent to meet loans in her name secured against City C. This is a direct financial contribution by the applicant towards the maintenance of the City C property.
21. The respondent had the property at the outset of the relationship. She did the majority of the work required, both in terms of setting up the business and then operating it.
22. Following separation, the applicant maintained payments of $3,450 into the respondent's account until September 2021. The payments are significant as the sole income for the respondent over that period. Without those funds there is no evidence the loan repayments could have been made by the respondent. The Financial Statement filed by the respondent in December 2021 demonstrates nil income, and outgoings of about $4,000 per week. This supports the applicant's submission that she was only able to maintain the outgoings on the City C property from the funds he provided. The respondent suggested without providing any evidence in support that she had funds from a redraw facility. I reject that argument as unsupported by the evidence.
23. I have found above there was family violence perpetrated by the applicant. In considering the impact of family violence on the respondent the applicant points to the respondent seeking a reconciliation as minimising family violence. I do not accept that the respondent seeking to reconcile, and nominating a later separation date than the applicant, minimises the impact on her of violence by the applicant. There are a myriad of reasons victims of violence seek to maintain a relationship with their abuser.
24. I am required to consider the impact of the applicant's violence on the respondent's financial, non-financial and homemaker contributions. The threats and violence came late in the parties' short relationship. I accept that although both parties wanted to open the business, the timing in April 2020 was driven by the applicant's coercive insistence.
25. The applicant's violent and threatening behaviour was exacerbated by his use of alcohol. When under the influence of alcohol his behaviour was at times threatening, aggressive and he made insulting derogatory taunts towards her. This had an adverse impact on the respondent. It made her work in and operation of the business more difficult. It is also made more arduous her role in the home.
26. There is evidence from the respondent's psychologist that she suffers from psychological distress consistent with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder caused by a history of family violence by the applicant. Dealing with the ongoing court proceedings are said to have exacerbated her symptoms.
27. I accept that family violence perpetrated by the applicant requires consideration in the contributions assessment.
28. The respondent says she borrowed a total of $400,000 in 2023 and 2024 from her brother and son. There is no evidence from either of those people. Nor is there evidence of the terms of the loans, including requirement for repayment. I do not accept there is a debt requiring payment by the respondent.
29. The applicant was diagnosed and treated for cancer during the course of the parties' relationship. He required surgery, later treatment in the ICU for post-operative issues, and chemotherapy. I accept the respondent provided care and support to the applicant through his illness.
30. While the respondent owned the properties at City C prior to the relationship the parties engaged with those properties by way of a joint enterprise. They took out a loan with D Bank. They lived together in premises paid for by the applicant. They provided each other with mutual support including through the applicant's diagnosis and treatment for cancer.
31. The respondent contributed the major asset in Pool 1 being the City C property. It has an agreed value of $7,000,000. The respondent made significant non-financial contributions in organising the building and other work required to set up the business, working in the enterprise, and cooking and cleaning for the parties in the unit they lived in during the relationship.
32. The applicant has a superior income. He provided direct financial contributions**,** and continued financial support of the respondent by payments of $3,450 per month, including post-separation. The applicant met all the costs of accommodation for the parties during the relationship. He contributed significant superannuation.
33. The applicant seeks a cash adjustment to him of $750,000. This would equate to him receiving 24 per cent of the pool containing the City C property. Submissions by counsel for the applicant did not engage with how this figure might be derived from the contributions of the applicant.
34. The respondent sought no orders in the alternate if an asset-by-asset approach was adopted. She seeks 40 per cent of all assets and liabilities. Again, there was little put in submissions that illuminates why that amount is appropriate.
35. I find the applicant's contribution-based entitlement to Pool 1 to be 20 per cent. This is on the basis that the respondent made the overwhelming contribution to the net pool by bringing in the City C property. Taking into account the impact of family violence on the respondent, I find an overall contributions based entitlement of 17.5 per cent to the applicant and 82.5 per cent to the respondent.
36. I find the applicant's contribution-based entitlement to Pool 2 to be 100 per cent.

WHAT ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE IN RELATION TO THE PARTIES' FUTURE NEEDS?

1. The applicant is in a superior financial position to the respondent. He has a significantly higher income than the respondent. He has superannuation resources and the resources of the Q Pty Ltd shares.
2. The respondent is 59 years and in reasonable health. She says she requires orthodontic work, although the evidence about that is scant. She receives continuing psychological assistance for PTSD as a consequence of family violence.
3. The applicant is 57 years and was treated with surgery and chemotherapy for cancer. On his evidence he is recovering well. He continues to be employed.
4. The applicant suggests there be no adjustment for future needs. There is a significant disparity in the parties' income. The fact alone does not warrant an adjustment in favour of the respondent following a short marriage: Clauson and Clauson [1995] FamCA 10; (1995) FLC 92-595; Kavanagh v Metzger [2010] FamCAFC 201; Marsh & Marsh [2014] FamCAFC 24.
5. The relationship has not impacted the parties' income and earning capacity as it may from a longer relationship where work was forgone for care responsibilities and the like.
6. The respondent's evidence is she has sessions with her psychologist approximately monthly and proposes continuing that engagement in the future. This is an ongoing expense for the respondent, which is assisted to a degree by Medicare. The report from her psychologist notes conclusion of the proceedings as likely to assist her.
7. I accept that a further adjustment is not warranted given the brevity of the parties' relationship.
8. The applicant will have the opportunity to raise funds to pay out the respondent, and otherwise there are orders for sale of the City C property if she is unable to meet her obligations pursuant to the orders.
9. The orders are made to allow for each party to recover chattels in possession of the other. There was no argument made against the applicant being able to collect the specified items sought.
10. I will make an order as sought for the Respondent to sign a notice of disposal for Motor Vehicle 1. There was no issue taken with this by the Respondent.

1. The respondent sought an order that the applicant be restrained from attending within 100 metres of the City C property. Counsel for the respondent made no submission on the power of the Court to make an injunction for the personal protection of a party in a de facto financial cause. Section 114(1)(a) of the Act specifically provides the power for such an order to be made with respect to parties to a marriage. At ss (2A) the circumstances for making injunctive orders in a de facto financial cause are expressed in a limited manner related to "the use or occupancy of a specified residence" or entering or remaining in a specified property. In those circumstances I do not propose making the order sought. If circumstances require, the respondent can apply through the New South Wales protection order provisions.

1. The respondent sought through an Application in Case filed 7 March 2025 that the applicant in these proceedings pay "at first instance, all costs and disbursements issued by Mr Box for work performed from 3 December 2024".
2. Orders of 17 April 2023 required each party to meet one half of the costs of the Single Expert.
3. The applicant argues that the Application should be dismissed so that the order remains for each party to meet one half of the costs of Mr Box. The applicant was not on notice that the application would be pressed at the final hearing. The final orders seek a percentage-based adjustment and make no reference to the Application in a Case.
4. Both parties filed Case Outline documents later than directed. The respondent relied on the Application in a Case filed 7 March 2025 in the list of documents. The Application had never been dealt with. Whilst I accept the form of the order was defective, given the report had been produced, it was tolerably clear that the respondent was seeking the applicant meet the total costs of the report.
5. I do not accept that the applicant should meet the total costs of the report. The costs were increased by Q Pty Ltd's lack of co-operation. As found previously I do not accept that is the responsibility of the applicant. I dismiss the respondent's Application in a Case filed 7 March 2025. The order remains for each party to meet one half of the costs.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and twenty-nine (129) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Boyle.