Prince and Prince

In *Prince & Prince* [2013] FamCA 435, the Family Court of Australia considered a property dispute between Mr Prince (the husband) and Ms Prince (the wife). The primary asset in contention was the husband's superannuation entitlement, as the parties had minimal other assets of substance. The husband sought property orders, while the wife sought a splitting of the husband's superannuation.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make an order altering the parties' interests in property, specifically the husband's superannuation. This involved considering the contributions of each party to the marriage and the future needs of each party, including their financial circumstances, responsibilities for children, and health. The court also had to consider the specific provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) relating to property adjustments and superannuation splitting.

Justice Cronin found that the only property of significant value was the parties' superannuation interests. He noted that the wife had primary responsibility for the three children, suffered from poor health, and was reliant on Centrelink benefits, indicating a greater future need for financial assistance. While contributions were considered equal during the marriage, the wife's post-separation circumstances and future economic vulnerability justified an adjustment in her favour. Applying sections 79(2) and 79(4) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the court determined that it was just and equitable to make an order splitting the husband's superannuation.

The court ordered that a base amount of $33,388.88 be allocated from the husband's interest in the AMP Superleader to the wife, in accordance with the *Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001*. The trustee of the superannuation fund was directed to take the necessary steps to calculate and pay this entitlement. The court also made orders regarding the severing of joint tenancies and each party's sole entitlement to property in their possession, and dismissed the parties' respective applications for property orders, save for any issues as to costs.