A husband who failed to comply with court orders that he transfer more than $100,000 held in a superannuation account to his wife as part of a property fight has been jailed for contempt under the Family Law Act.
A HUSBAND who failed to comply with court orders that he transfer more than $100,000 held in a superannuation account to his wife as part of a property fight has been jailed for contempt under the Family Law Act.
Federal magistrate Joe Harman said he was ''regrettably, and in the most unfortunate circumstances of this case'' forced to impose a nine-month jail term on the man who had spent the money, in large part, on prostitutes and gambling.
It is believed the man, who was ordered to give himself up last week, is now serving time in a NSW jail. A spokesman for the court said no appeal papers had been lodged.
Referring to the property fight, which began in 2007, the magistrate said in his judgment: ''The matter is tinged with some particular sadness and tragedy in that these parties had been married and in a relationship together for something in the order of 24 years and at this point would appear, financially, to have lost everything.''
Known by the pseudonym of Mr Weirs, the jailed man is 56. His wife, who sought the contempt order under a rarely invoked provision of the Family Law Act, is 51. The marriage had resulted in three children, now adults, the youngest 18.
Mr Harman noted that during the relationship, they had not only raised their three children but also during the relationship and at the date of separation '' accumulated not insubstantial assets''. This included a small farm property and commercial premises as well as the super, which the man had been ordered to pay his wife during the course of the protracted proceedings that started in 2007.
Acknowledging the grave step taken in jailing the man, he said he was ''satisfied that due process has been afforded to both parties and most particularly to Mr Weirs''.
''The husband's dealing with the funds has had the effect that Ms Weirs has been deprived entirely of what would ordinarily be referred to as 'the fruits of her litigation','' he said.
Evidence from a doctor that Mr Weirs who had care of one of the children, included the information: ''[that he] dedicated himself to his son but gambling remained a major problem.''
When asked about ''other compulsions'', a depressed Mr Weirs had confirmed he ''was using prostitutes on a weekly basis''.
The magistrate said: ''Mrs Weirs similarly was labouring under financial difficulties and had the care of a child of the marriage. She did not have the benefit or receipt of $116,000 to expend on gambling, prostitutes or any other activity.''
Retired Family Court judge John Fogarty said people who flouted orders under the Family Law Act were rarely sent to jail, but contempt needed to be available as it backed up the authority of a court.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What happened when a husband refused to transfer more than $100,000 in superannuation as ordered by the court?
A federal magistrate found the husband in contempt of court for failing to transfer more than $100,000 held in a superannuation account to his wife as part of a long-running property dispute. The magistrate imposed a nine-month jail term after evidence showed he had spent much of the money on gambling and prostitutes.
Can a court order the transfer of superannuation in a divorce or property settlement?
Yes. In this case the court ordered the husband to transfer more than $100,000 from a superannuation account to his wife as part of the property fight, showing that superannuation can be included in family law property orders.
What is contempt under the Family Law Act and can it result in jail time?
Contempt under the Family Law Act refers to failing to comply with court orders. While the article notes contempt proceedings are rarely used to send people to jail, this case resulted in a nine-month sentence, illustrating that imprisonment is a possible penalty for serious non‑compliance.
How common is it for people to be jailed for flouting Family Law Act orders?
According to a retired Family Court judge quoted in the article, people who flout Family Law Act orders are rarely sent to jail. However, contempt remains an available tool to enforce the authority of the court, and in exceptional cases it can lead to imprisonment.
What impact did the husband’s actions have on the wife’s financial position?
The magistrate found the wife had been deprived entirely of what would ordinarily be considered the 'fruits of her litigation.' The judgment noted she did not receive the benefit or receipt of $116,000 and was suffering financial difficulties as a result.
What behaviors did the court cite when finding the husband in contempt?
Evidence presented to the court showed the husband had spent a large part of the superannuation money on gambling and using prostitutes. A doctor’s evidence also described gambling as a major problem and that he was using prostitutes on a weekly basis.
What kinds of assets were involved in the property fight described in the article?
The magistrate noted the couple had accumulated 'not insubstantial assets' during their marriage, including a small farm property, commercial premises, and the superannuation account that was the subject of the court order.
What lessons does this case highlight for everyday investors about superannuation and family law disputes?
The case highlights that superannuation can be part of a family law property settlement, that courts can order transfers from super accounts, and that ignoring court orders can lead to serious consequences—including contempt proceedings and, in rare but severe cases, jail. It underscores the importance of complying with court orders during separation and property disputes.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
