A family business lost after separation, and a 66/34 split

The couple's relationship began in 1988; they married in 1992 and separated in 2016. They had three children, now adults. In 1992 they bought a business from the husband's parents and ran it together through a family trust, living above the premises, which they rented from his parents. The business gave them a comfortable life and met the loans on four investment properties.

In 2016, after they separated, the husband assaulted the wife at the business, and he was later convicted. She obtained an interim violence restraining order that kept him out of the business, and she ran the business. In early 2017 the trustee company of his parents' family trust gave her notice to quit, and the business never traded again. Justice Duncanson found the husband was instrumental in that notice, and that his conduct was reckless and negligent and designed to obstruct her running of a business he wanted for himself. The judge rejected his claim that she had deliberately mismanaged it.

By trial the properties had been sold. The pool was $700,234: $600,234 of the rest of their property and super, and the wife's $100,000 share of land her father had transferred to her and her siblings. That share was treated as a separate pool and stayed entirely with her. Her inheritance from her mother had gone to repay family loans for her legal costs and living expenses, so it was not counted. She did not press a claim that the violence had made her contributions more arduous, and the judge agreed that was proper.

On the main pool, contributions were 55/45 to the wife, mainly because of her care of the family after separation. A further 5% to her reflected the husband's conduct and the lost business, although no one could put a figure on the loss. That made 60/40 of the main pool, and 66% to her and 34% to him overall. From the joint funds she received $322,255 and he received $68,302, and he took over the business and the trust.