Greetham & Greetham

In *Greetham & Greetham*, the wife sought to set aside previous consent orders made for property settlement prior to the commencement of the *Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Act 2001* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the court had the power to set aside these orders, particularly in light of the new superannuation splitting provisions introduced by that Act, and whether the original orders were invalid or constituted a miscarriage of justice. The wife also sought, in the alternative, to review a Registrar's orders and obtain an extension of time to do so.

The court was required to determine whether it possessed the power to set aside the prior consent orders, whether those orders were *ultra vires* and invalid, and if there was a basis for setting them aside under section 79A(1)(a) or (b) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider whether the wife could seek a review of the Registrar's orders, whether the provisions of Part VIIIB of the Act could apply to such a review, and if an extension of time should be granted for that review.

Strickland J found that the original consent orders were within the court's power and valid, and that there was no basis for a miscarriage of justice under section 79A(1)(a) or that the orders were impracticable to carry out. However, the court held that it was open to the wife to apply for a review of the Registrar's decision. Given the husband's consent to an extension of time, the court granted this extension. The court then set aside the Registrar's order of 2 January 1998 and substituted new orders, which included allocating a base amount from the husband's superannuation interest to the wife and specifying the process for payment and transfer of these entitlements, effectively bringing forward the time the wife could receive her entitlement.