Westmore and Westmore

This matter concerned orders made by Dessau J in family law proceedings between a husband and wife. The dispute involved the division of property and the allocation of financial resources between the parties. The court's orders addressed the payment of specific sums of money, the transfer of property, and the division of superannuation interests.

The court was required to determine the terms of property settlement, including the amounts payable by the husband to the wife, the disposition of specific assets such as a property known as 'T' and another known as 'E', and a motor vehicle. Crucially, the court also had to address the division of the husband's superannuation interest held within the CG SUPER PLAN, a sub-plan of the M Super Trust, and ensure that the trustee of this fund was bound by the orders made.

Dessau J applied principles of property adjustment under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The orders provided for the husband to pay the wife $28,000 within 30 days, with a restraint on selling property 'T' until this payment was made, or to sell 'T' and apply the proceeds to discharge sale costs, an ANZ mortgage, and the outstanding payment to the wife. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife $700,000 within 90 days, with a restraint on selling property 'E' unless it was transferred to the wife in default of payment. The court also ordered the husband to provide the wife with a bank cheque for $16,000 upon collection of a Holden Statesman motor vehicle. Furthermore, the court made specific orders regarding the husband's superannuation interest, allocating a base amount of $171,574 to the wife and directing the trustee of the CG SUPER PLAN to pay the wife her calculated entitlement from splittable payments, in accordance with the *Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001*. The husband was restrained from taking actions that would render his superannuation payments non-splittable.

The orders also stipulated that each party would be solely entitled to other property in their possession, joint bank accounts were to be divided equally, and each party would forego claims to the other's superannuation benefits and work-related entitlements, save as expressly provided. The question of the wife's costs was reserved for further argument.