Watson & Holmes

The parties in this matter were de facto partners, with the Applicant seeking to enforce superannuation orders previously made by the Family Court. The dispute concerned the Respondent's failure to comply with an order requiring him to nominate the Applicant as a beneficiary to his superannuation fund and to elect to receive and pay out those benefits to the Applicant. The court was required to determine whether it retained jurisdiction to deal with the matter and make the orders sought, particularly in light of the High Court's decision in *Re Wakim*.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prior Family Court judgment was an "ineffective judgment" for the purposes of the *Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999* (Vic), and whether it constituted a "relevant order" under section 11 of that Act, thereby rendering it valid for enforcement in the Supreme Court. The court also considered whether it possessed the power to make the orders under the accrued jurisdiction of the Family Court and consequently enforce the relevant order.

The court reasoned that the Family Court's judgment of 5 August 1997, made under the cross-vesting legislation prior to the commencement of the *Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999* (Vic), was an ineffective judgment. However, the court noted that the Act provides for remedial consequences in such situations, treating the ineffective judgment as a judgment of the Supreme Court. The court also considered section 11 of the Act, which allows for applications to the Supreme Court to treat a federal court proceeding as a Supreme Court proceeding where the federal court acknowledges a lack of jurisdiction. The court ultimately found it had the power to make the orders sought.

The court ordered that the Respondent forthwith sign all necessary documents to enable him to elect to receive all his superannuation benefits and cause them to be paid to the Applicant's solicitors for payment to the Applicant. Furthermore, pursuant to section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar was appointed to execute all documents in the Respondent's name to give validity to the orders. The Respondent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs on a solicitor and client basis.