Agnarsson & Agnarsson (No 2)

In the matter of Agnarsson & Agnarsson (No 2), the wife applied to review certain orders made by a senior judicial registrar concerning property and valuables disputes in the context of the parties’ matrimonial separation. The central issues before the court included the disposition of three parcels of real property, the maintenance of insurance policies, the terms of redactions in disclosed documents, and the preservation and valuation of certain valuables. The wife sought to modify the registrar’s orders to compel the sale of the properties, discharge certain orders, and vary the terms of her permissive redactions. She also sought to discharge orders requiring her to place valuables into safe custody and sought new orders to allow for the sale of some valuables and the valuation of any retained valuables.

The court carefully considered the wife’s application for review, focusing on the specific proposals she had made. Regarding the real properties, the wife initially sought supplementary orders for the sale of the properties if the husband failed to maintain mortgage repayments but later reverted to her original position of seeking the outright sale of the properties. The husband opposed this but ultimately conceded to the wife’s revised proposal. Concerning the insurance policies, the wife sought to discharge the relevant order, which the court granted. The court found no reason to vary the terms of the wife’s permissive redactions in disclosed documents, as the registrar’s order was appropriate. In relation to the valuables, the court upheld the orders requiring their safe custody and the appointment of a single expert to value them, as these orders were necessary to preserve the assets and their value pending the final determination of the proceedings.

The court concluded that, aside from discharging certain orders regarding the properties and insurance, the wife’s review application was largely unsuccessful. The court dismissed all other antecedent applications brought by the parties. Consequently, the wife’s application was partially successful, and neither party had a competent claim to recover their costs of the review hearing, though they were granted leave to apply for costs if they considered it appropriate. The court made orders discharging certain orders, requiring the parties to lease the jointly owned property and apply the net rent to maintain the mortgage, and dismissing the various applications brought by the parties. Costs were reserved for 28 days.