Pera & Pera

In the matter of *Pera & Pera*, heard by Justice Cronin, the dispute concerned the enforcement and variation of property orders, specifically relating to the discharge of a mortgage and the division of superannuation assets. The wife was ordered to make certain paintings available to the husband for delivery to a superannuation fund, or an agreed sum in lieu thereof. Additionally, the parties were to share responsibility for fees associated with the superannuation fund.

The court was required to determine whether the property orders could be varied to account for expenses not explicitly mentioned, such as those for discharging a mortgage, and to resolve disputes regarding the contents of a superannuation fund where one party was entitled to "the fund" in the final orders. The court also considered the right of a party to seek recovery of superannuation assets directly, rather than through the trustee. Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of costs thrown away due to a party not being ready to proceed, applying the principle established in *Elias*.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the property orders could be varied to address the expenses for discharging the mortgage, treating these as machinery provisions necessary for the effective implementation of the orders. The court also clarified that a party entitled to a superannuation fund could seek to recover assets directly. Regarding costs, the court ordered the wife to pay the husband's costs thrown away for the hearing on 5 July 2007, specifying these costs to include the marked brief fee and solicitor costs as per the Family Law Rules. The husband's application and the wife's response were otherwise dismissed, with further submissions on costs to be made by a specified date.