Court unleashes 'war of the roses'

IT has been described as Australia's own War of the Roses divorce: a bitterly divided couple have been ordered by the Family Court to share the sprawling property they owned when they were married, even though they cannot stand each other.

IT has been described as Australia's own War of the Roses divorce: a bitterly divided couple have been ordered by the Family Court to share the sprawling property they owned when they were married, even though they cannot stand each other.

Unlike the Hollywood movie, where the couple played by Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner eventually kill each other, this dispute involves only allegations of violence and harassment, but police on both sides of the Victorian and NSW border are involved.

The case involves a couple, married for more than 30 years, with three adult children.

They had a prosperous agriculture business in southern NSW, which spans the border.

The family home, and the business, are on the same property.

In July judge Paul Cronin made orders that essentially split the property in two: the husband was to have sole control of the business side of the property, including the office, where customers are greeted, and the pool area.

The wife got the family home and the garden areas, except for two hours, between 11am and 1pm on Sunday, when the husband can enter the wife's area, to access the storerooms, or else conduct his business.

To help the couple manage, the court drew up a map, shading those areas that could be occupied by the husband, and those to be accessed by the wife.

The wife was restrained from approaching any employee, contractor or customer who stepped on to the property for the purpose of doing business. This included her two adult sons, who are employees of the business, and have sided with the father.

It has been somewhat tense since, and the matter returned to court on November 2 when the husband's QC, Martin Bartfeld, described the situation as being like The War of the Roses .

Judge Cronin said he preferred to liken the facts to "the conduct of the Montagues and the Capulets in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- (although) consistent with the War of the Roses theme -- my concern is that this is a Shakespearean tragedy."

Each half of the couple alleges violence against the other. The wife says the husband has been telling the children she is mentally unstable.

The circumstances under which each of them may cross the other's property are in dispute.

The husband thought he could access the wife's property freely during the two hours on Sundays, but there was nothing in the order that forced her to be absent.

She has taken out an AVO against him, so whenever he visits during those hours, he is at risk of breaching it.

His lawyer described this situation as "like a Sword of Damocles" hanging over the husband's head.

He has taken to videotaping his visits to her side of the property so she can't accuse him of harassing her. The husband has to operate the business while the wife is in the house, and says she "goads him" and "provokes difficulties with customers", and now police are involved.

The judge said "there was clearly a lot of emotion in the case", but his role was to decide whether it was "reasonable or sensible or practical" to expect the parties to continue to live as they are. He refused to order the removal of the wife from the property, saying it would create hardship for her.

He also asked the husband to be "more cautious about his confrontations" with his wife.