PARRISH & PARRISH

Case

[2014] FamCA 851

19 August 2014


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
PARRISH & PARRISH [2014] FamCA 851 [2014] FamCA 851 19 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of PARRISH & PARRISH, Benjamin J of the Family Court of Australia made orders concerning the division of superannuation interests between a husband and wife. The dispute centred on the wife's entitlement to a portion of the husband's superannuation account with Cbus Industry Super.

The court was required to determine the quantum of the wife's entitlement from the husband's superannuation interest and to make orders for the implementation of a superannuation split pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This involved specifying the base amount to be allocated to the wife and the mechanism by which this amount would be paid from splitable payments from the husband's superannuation interest.

Benjamin J ordered that the base amount allocated to the wife from the husband's interest in Cbus Industry Super be forty thousand dollars ($40,000). Pursuant to section 90MT(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the wife is entitled to this amount from splitable payments, with a corresponding reduction in the husband's entitlement. The court further stipulated that these orders must be served on the Trustee of the superannuation account within twenty-eight days, and would become binding upon the Trustee if no objection or application to vary was received within thirty days of service. The operative time for the superannuation split was set for four business days after the expiry of the Trustee's objection period. The husband was also ordered to file an affidavit of service on the Trustee. Leave was granted for the parties to apply to the court if the Trustee was unable to comply with the orders. All extant applications were dismissed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Equity & Trusts

Legal Concepts

  • Remedies

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0

Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52
Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52