Dunne and Dunne

In the matter of *Dunne and Dunne*, heard before Watt J, the wife sought to vary a final property settlement order made in 2006. The dispute concerned the wife's entitlement to a share of the husband's superannuation, which had accrued significantly after the parties' separation and prior to the final property settlement. The wife contended that the superannuation was an asset that should have been included in the original property pool, arguing that the final orders were therefore not "final" in the true sense and should be revisited.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife's application to vary the final property settlement orders was valid, specifically concerning the inclusion of post-separation superannuation accrual. The court was required to determine if the superannuation, which had grown substantially after the parties had separated and before the final orders were made, constituted an asset that should have been, or could now be, brought back into the property pool for division. This involved considering the finality of property settlement orders and the circumstances under which such orders might be set aside or varied.

Watt J reasoned that the superannuation in question was acquired by the husband after the parties' separation and was therefore not a matrimonial asset to be divided. The court applied the principle that final property settlement orders are intended to provide certainty and finality to disputes between parties. Unless specific grounds for setting aside or varying such orders are established, they are to be upheld. In this instance, the court found no basis to disturb the original orders, as the superannuation in dispute was not an asset that existed at the time of separation or was otherwise contemplated as part of the matrimonial property.

Consequently, the wife's application filed on 6 June 2008 was dismissed.