Ramon & Ramon

In *Ramon & Ramon*, Coleman J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the implementation of property settlement orders. The wife contended that interest should accrue on her superannuation interests for a period during which she alleged the husband had delayed in signing necessary documentation. The husband argued that he had complied with his obligations and that the wife's attorneys were aware of the situation and had not raised complaints in subsequent correspondence. The court was also asked to determine whether the husband was obliged to transfer certain bank accounts to the wife, irrespective of the superannuation orders, and whether a Full Court had varied the timing of an order requiring the husband to transfer monies to the wife.

The primary legal issues before the court were the calculation of interest on superannuation entitlements, the wife's obligation to transfer bank accounts, and the interpretation of previous court orders regarding the timing of monetary transfers. The court also had to consider the appropriate allocation of costs given the parties' respective successes and failures on the contentious issues.

Coleman J found the wife's contention regarding the accrual of interest on her superannuation interests to be without merit, noting that the husband had signed the required documentation and that the wife's attorneys had been put on notice without subsequent complaint. The court held that it was bound by the orders of the Full Court concerning the accrual of interest. Regarding the bank accounts, the court determined that the wife was obliged to transfer them to the husband upon receipt of the requisite sum, regardless of the superannuation orders. The husband's assertion that the Full Court had varied the timing of an order requiring him to transfer monies to the wife was not established, and the court found it inequitable for the husband to benefit from retaining those monies for an extended period.

Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife approximately $2426 from the Australian Scholarship Association Fund, plus any further payments received from that fund subsequent to 12 May 2008 as agreed or evidenced. The wife was ordered to pay two-thirds of the husband's costs of the application filed on 12 May 2009. The application filed on 12 May 2009 and the response filed on 22 May 2009 were dismissed.