VARNHAM & VARNHAM

In the matter of Varnham & Varnham, Berman J considered applications by both the husband and wife concerning property division and procedural matters. The husband sought a distribution of pension funds in his favour and the removal of the wife as a director of a company. The wife opposed the husband's application regarding the pension funds and sought to preserve the parties' assets, also opposing her removal as director.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included how to manage and distribute funds from a superannuation fund, particularly a pension payment intended for the husband, given the lack of evidence regarding its intended use. The court also had to consider the appointment of a single expert valuer for properties, given the significant disparity in valuations already undertaken by separate experts and a prior conditional order for a single expert. Finally, the court was asked to decide whether to remove the wife as a director of a company, in circumstances where no evidence suggested she had frustrated the business's operations.

Berman J reasoned that the pension funds should be placed in a joint account and used to meet the costs of valuations, rather than being immediately distributed to the husband. Regarding the property valuations, the court noted a previous order for a single expert was conditional on a timeframe that had passed, and instead ordered the parties' respective experts to confer and prepare a joint memorandum. On the issue of the wife's directorship, the court found no evidence of her attempting to frustrate the business and considered it inappropriate to remove her purely for the husband's convenience, noting alternative pathways available under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The court made several orders by consent, including liberty for the wife to sell two motor vehicles at specified values, and for the parties to arrange for C Accountants to manage the D Superannuation Fund. Injunctions were granted restraining both parties from interfering with the superannuation fund's assets or making sole decisions regarding its management. The parties were ordered to instruct specific individuals to confer on property valuations, with responsibility for fees allocated. The court also ordered an inspection of the husband's collection and directed C Accountants to assess rent due and appoint a valuer for a commercial rent and compliance status of the superannuation fund. A specific sum from the husband's pension was to be held in a joint account to pay the costs of C Accountants. Finally, the interim proceedings were dismissed.