Ainscrow & Gilborne

In the matter of *Ainscrow & Gilborne*, heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Ms Ainscrow (the Applicant) sought orders against Mr Gilborne (the Respondent) concerning compliance with previous financial orders, specifically relating to a superannuation splitting order. A dispute had arisen regarding the Respondent's contention that a superannuation splitting order should only take effect upon the delivery of certain artworks, which he claimed were property of the superannuation fund, while the Applicant argued the final orders were silent on this matter.

The court was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether a payment of $265,000 made by the Respondent constituted full compliance with the relevant final orders, or if a further sum of $16,935.02, as claimed by the Applicant, was still payable; and second, assuming the Applicant succeeded on the first issue, whether the Respondent should be ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the enforcement proceedings. The court also noted its power to make superannuation splitting orders under Part VIIIB of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which operates in conjunction with Part 7A of the *Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994* (Cth) to effect the separation of superannuation interests.

Monahan J found that the Respondent's payment of $265,000 did not represent full compliance with the final orders. The court determined that a further sum of $16,935 was payable to the Trustee of Super Fund B on behalf of the Applicant, and an additional amount of $7,539 was payable directly to the Applicant. The Respondent was ordered to make these payments within 42 days, with interest to accrue on any outstanding amounts thereafter at the rate prescribed by Rule 22.01 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* (Cth). All extant costs applications were dismissed.