Awataman and Lahri (No 2)

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Awataman sought and was granted a warrant for the possession of real property located at B Street, Suburb C, against the respondent, Ms Lahri. Ms Lahri did not appear at the hearing, having also failed to attend a previous hearing on 3 May 2011 when final property orders were made. The court was satisfied, based on affidavit evidence, that Ms Lahri was aware of the proceedings and had chosen not to participate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to issue a warrant of possession to enforce previous orders made on 3 May 2011, which stipulated that Ms Lahri vacate the property by 4 pm on 30 June 2011. The court also considered the application for costs, specifically whether there were justifiable circumstances to depart from the usual rule that parties bear their own costs, and whether indemnity costs should be awarded.

Justice Cronin reasoned that Ms Lahri had clearly received notice of the orders and had deliberately ignored them, thus demonstrating a defiance of court orders. This conduct constituted a justifiable circumstance to depart from the usual costs rule under section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court found that Ms Lahri's non-compliance and lack of cooperation warranted an order for costs against her. Furthermore, considering Ms Lahri's substantial entitlement from the property settlement and her apparent employment, the court was satisfied that she had the financial capacity to pay costs. The court also determined that indemnity costs were appropriate given the significant costs Mr Awataman had incurred in seeking to enforce the court's orders.

The court ordered that a warrant for possession issue seven days after service of the order, authorising the Marshal and law enforcement officers to enter the premises, remove Ms Lahri, and give vacant possession to Mr Awataman. This warrant was to remain in force until 11 July 2012. Additionally, Ms Lahri was ordered to pay Mr Awataman's costs fixed at $2883.52, to be deducted from her property entitlement. The application in a case filed on 6 July 2011 was otherwise dismissed.