Wooley and Kingston

In the matter of *Wooley and Kingston*, Justice Brown of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife to vary existing orders concerning the husband's superannuation interests. The dispute centred on the wife's entitlement to a portion of the husband's superannuation, specifically his interest in Australian Super. The wife sought to vary previous orders to ensure she received 100% of any splittable payments from the husband's Australian Super interest.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to dispense with service requirements and time limits to hear the application urgently, and crucially, whether to vary the existing orders to direct the trustee of Australian Super to pay 100% of splittable payments to the wife. The court also had to consider whether to restrain the husband from dealing with his superannuation interest and to bind the trustee to the new payment arrangements.

Justice Brown reasoned that dispensing with service and time limits was necessary to enable the application to be heard forthwith, given the circumstances. The court applied section 90MT(1B) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to vary the previous orders. This section permits the court to make orders for the payment of superannuation interests in accordance with the *Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001*. The court ordered that 100% of splittable payments from the husband's Australian Super interest be paid to the wife's legal representatives whenever they became payable, with a corresponding reduction in the husband's entitlement. The court also made orders restraining the husband from dealing with his superannuation interest and binding the trustee to observe its obligations. Liberty was granted to the trustee to apply to set aside the orders within 28 days of service.