Jasper and Thorp

Case

[2016] FCCA 2981

30 November 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Jasper and Thorp [2016] FCCA 2981 [2016] FCCA 2981 30 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jasper and Thorp, before Judge Terry, the dispute concerned the division of property and superannuation interests between the parties. The orders indicate a final resolution of these matters, involving the transfer of a property and the allocation of a portion of the husband's superannuation to the wife.

The court was required to determine how to equitably divide the parties' assets, specifically addressing the ownership of a property and the distribution of a superannuation entitlement. This involved applying the provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly sections relating to superannuation interests and the court's power to make orders for property adjustment.

Judge Terry ordered that the wife would pay off the mortgage on Property C and, upon doing so, the husband would transfer his interest in that property to her. The wife was also to indemnify the husband against future liabilities related to the property. Crucially, the court allocated a base amount of $237,482.78 from the husband's interest in the Police Superannuation Scheme to the wife, in accordance with s 90MT(4) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The Trustee of the scheme was directed to calculate and pay this entitlement, with the husband's own entitlement being correspondingly reduced. The orders specified an operative time for these arrangements and bound the Trustee. Each party was otherwise declared the owner of assets in their possession. The court also made provision for the Registrar to execute documents if a party refused to do so.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Equity & Trusts

Legal Concepts

  • Remedies

  • Statutory Construction

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

Emmeran & Emmeran [2022] FedCFamC2F 1507
Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

3

Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52