Bale-Sutch and Bale-Sutch (No 5)

In the matter of Bale-Sutch and Bale-Sutch (No 5), Justice Cronin of the Family Court of Australia was required to make orders concerning the sale of a property following a dispute between the husband and wife. The specific nature of the underlying dispute that led to these orders is not detailed, but the orders themselves indicate a disagreement regarding the process and terms of the property's sale.

The court was tasked with determining the most appropriate mechanism for selling the jointly owned property, including the appointment of agents, the method of sale (private treaty or auction), the pricing strategy, and the division of associated costs such as commission and advertising. Furthermore, the court needed to address potential non-compliance by either party and establish a framework for ensuring the sale could proceed effectively, even in the event of refusal by one party to sign necessary documents.

Justice Cronin's reasoning, as evidenced by the orders made, focused on establishing a clear and comprehensive process to facilitate the sale of the property. The court mandated the termination of the husband's existing agency agreement and the appointment of two real estate agencies to act in conjunction. The property was to be initially offered for private treaty within a specified price range for two months, with provisions for an auction if a sale was not achieved. Crucially, the court invoked section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to appoint a registrar of the Family Court to sign any necessary documents in the name of a party who refused to comply with the orders, thereby providing a mechanism to overcome potential obstruction.

The final orders directed the husband to sign documents terminating his agency agreement and, along with the wife, to appoint the two specified real estate agencies to sell the property. The property was to be marketed via private treaty for two months within a price range of $300,000 to $335,000, with a reserve price of $300,000 for a subsequent auction if necessary. The court also made provisions for the appointment of a conveyancer and the determination of commission and advertising budgets, with a registrar empowered to execute documents on behalf of a non-compliant party. All other applications were dismissed.