Clements and Clements (No.2)
Case
•
[2014] FCCA 2615
•24 November 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Clements and Clements (No.2) [2014] FCCA 2615
[2014] FCCA 2615
24 November 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Clements and Clements (No.2)*, Judge Small of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application to vary existing Family Law Act 1975 property settlement orders. The dispute concerned the division of superannuation entitlements between the husband and wife.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether to vary the previous orders regarding the allocation of a specific superannuation fund, the "(omitted) Fund," to achieve a more equitable distribution of the parties' financial resources. This involved determining the precise base amount to be transferred from the husband's interest in the fund to the wife.
The court exercised its power under s 79A(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 to vary the orders of 6 December 2012. Judge Small reasoned that the variation was necessary to clarify and implement the intended division of the "(omitted) Fund." The court specified that an additional amount of $69,189, in addition to a previously split amount, was to be determined as a base amount from the husband's interest in the "(omitted) Fund" for the wife. The court also made consequential amendments to define the parties as member and non-member spouse, identify the specific fund, and clarify the operative date for the orders.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether to vary the previous orders regarding the allocation of a specific superannuation fund, the "(omitted) Fund," to achieve a more equitable distribution of the parties' financial resources. This involved determining the precise base amount to be transferred from the husband's interest in the fund to the wife.
The court exercised its power under s 79A(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 to vary the orders of 6 December 2012. Judge Small reasoned that the variation was necessary to clarify and implement the intended division of the "(omitted) Fund." The court specified that an additional amount of $69,189, in addition to a previously split amount, was to be determined as a base amount from the husband's interest in the "(omitted) Fund" for the wife. The court also made consequential amendments to define the parties as member and non-member spouse, identify the specific fund, and clarify the operative date for the orders.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
2