Cameron and Starling

In the matter of *Cameron and Starling*, Dessau J considered an application concerning the payment of funds held by a third party, Hocking Stuart (BSM) Pty Ltd. The dispute involved an order previously made by Justice Cronin on 2 July 2008, which the current proceedings sought to address and potentially vary. The core of the disagreement revolved around the rightful recipient of a specific sum of money held by the real estate agency.

The primary legal issues before Dessau J were whether the previous order should be discharged, to whom the sum of $25,536.52 held by Hocking Stuart (BSM) Pty Ltd should be paid, and whether Ms Starling should be restrained from directing those funds to herself or another nominee. The court was also required to determine the appropriate costs order arising from the proceedings.

Dessau J reasoned that the order should be discharged and directed that Ms Starling must ensure Hocking Stuart (BSM) Pty Ltd pays $25,536.52 to Keith R Cameron. To facilitate this, Ms Starling was ordered to sign all necessary instruments. The court further stipulated that if Ms Starling failed to comply, an officer of the court could be appointed under s 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* to execute the required documents in her name. Ms Starling was also enjoined from directing the funds to herself or any other person other than Mr Cameron. The court requested Hocking Stuart (BSM) Pty Ltd to note and agree to be bound by these orders. Finally, Ms Starling was ordered to pay Mr Cameron's costs in the sum of $27,803.09.