HINCHMAN & HINCHMAN

In *Hinchman & Hinchman*, the parties, a husband and wife, presented a dispute to Cleary J concerning the division of their modest non-superannuation assets and, more significantly, the husband's public service pension. The central contention revolved around the proportion of the pension that should be allocated to the wife.

The court was required to determine how the husband's public service pension should be treated as a property pool and, consequently, what percentage of that pension should be awarded to the wife. The court also considered an application for costs made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, in circumstances where parenting issues had been resolved separately and the payment of costs would cause financial hardship to both parties.

Cleary J approached the pension as a distinct property pool, taking into account its "real nature" and the fact that the husband was currently utilising it as a secondary income stream. The court reasoned that adjustments were warranted in favour of the wife, leading to an order that she receive 35 per cent of the pension. Regarding the costs application, the court dismissed the Independent Children’s Lawyer's application, noting the financial hardship it would impose on the parties. The remaining orders dealt with the specific allocation of the superannuation fund, the binding of the Trustee, the delivery of certain artworks, and the retention of personalty by each party.