Grey and Grey No.2

In *Grey & Grey No.2* [2012] FamCA 885, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife, Ms Grey, for property orders, specifically a superannuation splitting order. The husband, Mr Grey, did not appear at the hearing, although he had been served with the application and was aware that such an order was sought. Ms Grey was self-represented.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was just and equitable to make a superannuation splitting order pursuant to s 90MT(1)(b) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in favour of the wife, granting her 100 per cent of the husband's entitlement from the B Pty Ltd Super Fund. The Court also considered the husband's notice of the application and his failure to appear or respond.

Justice Ryan found that it was just and equitable to make the superannuation splitting order. The Court noted the husband's persistent non-appearance and inferred that he had no opposition to the order being made. The Court also considered the wife's significant financial hardship, including her sole care of the children and her personal liability for substantial debts. The Court reasoned that any necessary adjustment in the husband's favour could be made against the wife's interest in other property.

The Court ordered that the wife be entitled to 100 per cent of the husband's entitlement from the B Pty Ltd Super Fund when a splittable payment becomes payable. This order was stayed for six weeks, during which the husband had liberty to apply to the Court. The wife was directed to serve the orders on the husband and file an affidavit of compliance. Further directions were given regarding the filing and service of amended applications and affidavits for a future hearing.