Baghti and Baghti

In the matter of *Baghti and Baghti*, Fowler J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband seeking to dismiss his Response to an Application in a Case. The wife and Ms B Bouras sought orders to amend existing orders made on 27 November 2012, specifically concerning the sale of a business known as "[D Business]". The dispute centred on the wording of the original orders and the extent to which Ms B Bouras, who was not a party to the original proceedings, was to be involved in the sale process.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband's Response should be dismissed and, crucially, whether the existing orders could be amended to reflect the involvement of Ms B Bouras in the sale of the business. This involved determining the court's power to vary or clarify its previous orders, particularly when a third party, not originally a party to the proceedings, was to be directly involved in the execution of those orders. The court also had to consider the appropriate mechanism for amending the orders under the Family Law Rules.

Fowler J reasoned that the husband's Response was without merit and should be dismissed. The court found that the original orders, while referring to "the parties", implicitly contemplated the involvement of Ms B Bouras in the sale of the business, as evidenced by the detailed provisions for her agreement and co-operation in the sale process. To give full effect to the original intention and to clarify the roles of the parties involved in the sale, the court exercised its power under Rule 17.02 of the Family Law Rules to amend the wording of the existing orders. The court ordered that the words "the parties" in a specific clause of the 27 November 2012 orders be deleted and replaced with "the wife and [Ms B]". The costs of the wife's application were reserved to the Appeal.