DANBY & DANBY

In the matter of *Danby & Danby*, Benjamin J considered an application to vary existing final property orders made by consent on 13 January 2014. The proceedings involved a husband and wife, and the dispute centred on the division of assets and liabilities, particularly concerning a company, a superannuation fund, and real property.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the previous consent orders should be varied to facilitate the transfer of directorship and shareholdings in D Pty Ltd, the re-appointment of a trustee for the Mr Danby Pty Ltd Superannuation Fund (SMSF), and the transfer of legal ownership of a property located at I Street, Suburb J, Victoria. Further issues included the transfer of assets from the F Investment Trust to the SMSF, the husband's indemnification of the wife for liabilities associated with these transfers, and the wife's retention of E Pty Ltd. The court also had to address the base amount to be split from the wife's interest in the SMSF and the operative date for certain splitting orders.

Benjamin J applied section 79A(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to vary the consent orders. The reasoning involved detailed provisions for the re-appointment of the husband as director of D Pty Ltd, the wife's resignation and transfer of shares, and the transfer of the Suburb J property to the SMSF or the F Trust. The court confirmed the existing orders in other respects, discharged certain paragraphs, and substituted new provisions regarding the SMSF split amount and its operative date. The husband was ordered to indemnify the wife against liabilities arising from the property and trust transfers, while the wife was to indemnify the husband in relation to E Pty Ltd.

The court ordered that the consent orders be varied in accordance with the detailed provisions outlined in the judgment. This included specific timelines for the transfer of directorship, shares, and property, as well as the calculation and effect of the SMSF split. All outstanding applications, except for costs, were dismissed, and exhibits were to be returned after the appeal period.