Bar & JMR (No. 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered the dispute between a husband and wife concerning the division of their property, with a particular focus on the husband's superannuation entitlements. The proceedings involved determining the quantum and methodology for valuing the husband's defined benefit superannuation interest, specifically within the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme (ESSS). The matter had been adjourned previously to allow for updated expert reports and to resolve uncertainties regarding the valuation of the husband's superannuation.

The court was required to determine the appropriate method for valuing the husband's defined benefit superannuation interest in the growth phase, considering the specific nature of the ESSS fund and its departure from typical private sector schemes. Further issues included the impact of the husband ceasing contributions to ESSS, his commencement of contributions to a second superannuation fund, and the wife's claims regarding the increase in value of the husband's superannuation upon his transfer to ESSS. The court also had to consider the various orders sought by both parties, ranging from a base amount allocated to the wife in the growth phase to a percentage split of the husband's lump sum benefit upon vesting.

Justice Young applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 79 and its associated regulations concerning superannuation. The court considered expert evidence regarding the valuation of the husband's superannuation and the specific characteristics of the ESSS fund, noting that ESSS had not applied for a scheme-specific valuation method. The court rejected the wife's assertion that the increase in the husband's superannuation value upon transfer to ESSS was a "financial windfall," finding it was a consequence of a compromise between increased contribution value and a restricted pension option. The court also considered the husband's reasons for ceasing contributions to ESSS, including spousal maintenance obligations and advice from a financial planner. The court ultimately determined the appropriate orders for the division of the husband's superannuation interests.