Parkes and Parkes

The case of *Parkes and Parkes* concerned property settlement orders made by Thornton J in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved the division of assets and liabilities between the Husband and Wife.

The court was required to determine the terms of the property settlement, including the payment of a sum by the Wife to the Husband, the transfer of a property, the division of joint accounts, and the allocation of various personal and financial assets. Crucially, the court also had to address the division of superannuation interests, specifically the Wife's interest in the Catholic Superannuation Fund, and the rights and obligations of the parties and the Trustee of the Fund in relation to this division.

Thornton J ordered that the Wife pay a specified sum to the Husband within ninety days, and contemporaneously, the Husband was to transfer his interest in a property to the Wife, vacate the property, and facilitate the closure of joint bank accounts. In the event of non-payment, the property was to be sold, with proceeds applied first to sale costs, then to the outstanding payment with interest, and any balance to the Wife. The Husband was granted sole occupation of the property pending payment or sale, and was to meet associated outgoings. The court also detailed the exclusive entitlement of each party to various personal belongings, financial assets, and investments. Furthermore, the court made orders pursuant to sections 90MT(1)(a) and 90MT(4) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to allocate a base amount of the Wife's superannuation to the Husband from the Catholic Superannuation Fund, with corresponding reductions to the Wife's entitlement. These orders were made binding on the Trustee of the Fund, and provisions were included to protect the Husband's entitlement pending rollover, including notice requirements for the Wife's retirement and communication protocols with the Trustee. The orders also stipulated that each party would be solely entitled to other property not specifically mentioned, that joint tenancies were severed, and that each party would indemnify the other against liabilities related to their respective entitlements.