HORVATH & HORVATH (No.2)

In the matter of *Horvath & Horvath (No.2)*, Judge Young of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife to vary previous final orders concerning the alteration of property interests. The husband had failed to comply with the original payment orders and had not participated in the proceedings since before the trial. The trustee of a superannuation scheme had also raised objections regarding the form of the initial orders.

The court was required to determine whether to vary the previous property adjustment orders to address the husband's non-compliance and the trustee's concerns. Specifically, the court needed to consider how to enforce the division of the husband's superannuation interests in light of the previous orders and the trustee's involvement.

Judge Young reasoned that a variation of the original orders was necessary to ensure compliance and to provide a clear mechanism for the division of the husband's superannuation. Applying principles of family law concerning property adjustment and enforcement, the court issued injunctive orders restraining the husband from dealing with certain bank accounts and superannuation interests except as directed by the court. The court also made specific orders pursuant to section 90XT(1)(b) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, entitling the wife to 50% of any splittable payment from the husband's Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, with a corresponding reduction in the husband's entitlement.

The court ordered that the wife serve the new orders on the trustee of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, allowing the trustee 28 days to notify the court if they wished to be heard. The operative time for the superannuation payment order was set at 90 days after service of the sealed orders on the trustee. Liberty to apply was granted, and all other property was to remain with the party in possession.