In each issue of Brief we highlight a small selection of the exclusive special offers and discounts our members receive on a variety of goods and services. For the full listing of member privileges head to our website : lawsocietywa.asn.au/member-privileges/
Health & Wellness
Member
Privileges
Finance
All Law Society members receive special discounts and benefits with HBF including: • Up to 12% off Hospital and Extras cover • Up to 23% off Home, Landlords, Car, Boat and Caravan cover, and up to 19% off Travel Insurance • HBF will even help you switch from your current fund and recognise your length of membership so you won’t need to re-start any waiting periods previously served (see policy terms and conditions).
This month Cullen Haynes took time out to explain the fantastic benefits Law Society members receive from Legal Home Loans. It is very informative and well worth a watch - click the video thumbnail below to find out more.
Find out more via our HBF member privilege page. For info phone: 1300 132 549, or visit your local HBF branch and quote your Law Society membership number to access your special discount and benefits. *Conditions apply to some offers. For the full list of member privileges please check our website.
… to establish that there was no de facto relationship after late 2011/early 2012 … This is a clear error ( … ) [33] … Section 4AA(1) of the Act mandates that regard must be had to all the circumstances of the relationship in determining whether it is one of a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis. (…) [34] … [G]iven that her Honour accepted the evidence of the [de facto wife] … as to the circumstances in this case and in particular having regard to the fact that after mid-2011 any sexual activity was non‑consensual … it is not explained by her Honour … why those circumstances could only have ‘limited relevance’ in this case; plainly they … could only have led to a finding … that there was not a genuine domestic relationship … after late 2011/ early 2012. ( … ) As to separation, the Full Court said (from [40]): “The issue is not whether the parties ‘separated’, but whether the de facto relationship broke down or ceased. ( … ) [42] There is no mention in the Act … of there needing to be an intention formed to either enter into a de facto relationship, or … to end it. ( … ) [45] … [T]he comparison of the circumstances as they existed prior to late 2011/early 2012 with the circumstances that existed thereafter should have led her
Honour to find that the de facto relationship ceased at that time.”
Property – Application for interim sale of shareholding which would prejudice wife’s position denied where no urgency In Maggio & Turner [2021] FamCA 466 (1 July 2021) Hartnett J dismissed a husband’s application for the winding up of a trust and sale of a shareholding interest, in which he argued that neither party sought to retain the interest such that a sale was inevitable. A single expert had valued the shareholdings as being worth $280,612 per share, whereas another shareholder in the group had offered the husband $150,000 per share. The Court said (from [19]): “The value of [the] … offer to the parties’ is 54% of the value attributed to the … interest … as determined by the single expert Mr M. ( … ) [21] There appears no disagreement between the parties that the sale of the shareholding … will deprive the parties of between $415,000 and $420,000 a year … [22] The husband’s argument for selling the shareholding interest as proposed by him is to allow him to obtain finance to purchase a home in the sum of approximately $2 million. … The husband does not … set out in his evidence … any urgent need to sell the interest … The sale, as proposed by the
husband, will decrease [the] income stream for each of the parties in a significant way, in particular and relevantly, by comparison with any interest the husband may pay in borrowing costs for the purchase of a new home. … The husband has the necessary income stream from the parties’ shareholding interest to purchase a home … and meet repayments ( … ) [25] The single expert, Mr M, attributed a value of $5,500,000 to the parties’ entire interest ( … ) [30] The husband submitted that in circumstances where neither party seeks to retain the shares … that the shareholding should be sold. [31] The only present offer to purchase the parties’ shareholding … is the earlier referred to $150,000 per percentage point … The wife claimed in respect of this offer that the husband was seeking to undersell a substantial asset of the parties. … [32] There is no conclusive evidence before me … to indicate that the husband is attempting to deliberately undersell a[n] … asset of the parties’. ( … ) [39] I am of the view that the shareholding need not be sold until the valuation is fully tested at trial ( … ) [A]llowing the shareholding interest to be sold would … ‘clearly cause irreversible prejudice to the wife’s ongoing financial position’.”
65
