Bogdanov and Pryor (No 4)

In *Bogdanov and Pryor (No 4)*, Bell J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for an extension of time to comply with a partial property settlement order made on 11 October 2013. The dispute arose from the wife's failure to meet the payment obligations stipulated in the original order, which involved a sum of $135,000 payable to the husband. The wife's application was complicated by allegations that her evidence had misled the court and a subsequent change in her financial circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the wife an extension of time to satisfy the property settlement order and whether to vary the existing orders to facilitate payment. The court also had to consider the wife's claim of an equitable charge over an asset that was subject to the original order, and the impact of such a claim on the enforceability of the court's legal orders. The court was guided by principles relating to the variation of property settlement orders under section 80(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and relevant case law including *Fahmi & Fahmi* and *Watson & Watson*.

Bell J reasoned that an equitable charge, if it existed, could not defeat a legal order of the court. The court ultimately varied the original orders to provide the wife with a new deadline of 24 March 2014 to pay the $135,000 to the husband. This variation was contingent on the wife taking specific steps to realise funds, including closing or selling four trading accounts, paying a portion of funds from another account, and delivering a specific motor vehicle to the husband for sale. The proceeds from these actions were to be applied towards the husband's entitlement. The court also made provision for any residual proceeds from the vehicle sale to be used for other outstanding orders, and stipulated that if these residual proceeds were depleted before a certain date, then certain further orders would be suspended until 27 January 2014.