Baxter and Baxter

In the matter of *Baxter and Baxter*, heard by Judge Altobelli, the wife sought to vary a consent order made on 28 July 2010. The original order had dealt with the division of superannuation interests. The dispute centred on the wife's application to set aside a portion of the existing order concerning the husband's superannuation and substitute it with new provisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to vary the previous consent order pursuant to s.79A(1A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved determining if the circumstances warranted setting aside the existing superannuation division and replacing it with new orders that would directly impact the trustee of the superannuation fund. A further issue was the operative date of any new orders and the allocation of costs.

Judge Altobelli applied s.79A(1A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* to vary the consent order. The court ordered that the entirety of Order 4, encompassing specific sub-orders relating to the superannuation division, be set aside. In its place, the court made new orders pursuant to s.90MT(1)(a) of the Act. These new orders stipulated that whenever a splittable payment became payable from the husband's superannuation interest, the trustee was to pay a specific calculated amount to the wife, with a corresponding reduction in the husband's entitlement. The court also specified the operative time for these new orders, being the fourth business day after service on the trustee. Finally, the court ordered the wife to pay the husband's costs in the sum of $8,736 within 30 days.