Caro and Pan

[2018] FCCA 2503

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARO & PAN [2018] FCCA 2503

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – enforcement of Orders – considerations regarding the award of costs including indemnity costs.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.117

Cases cited:

Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

Stephens v Stephens (2011) 44 Fam LR 117

Applicant: MR CARO

Respondent: MS PAN

File Number: CAC 1209 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: 6 June 2018

Date of Last Submission: 16 July 2018

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 3 August 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant: Walsh & Blair, Wagga Wagga

Counsel for the Respondent:

Solicitors for the Respondent: Self represented

ORDERS

1. If not already attended to, within 21 days of the date of these Orders, being by close of business on 24 August 2018, the Respondent is to cause the discharge of the mortgage to the Bank 1 in relation to Property A, NSW.

2. Noyce Salmon D’Aquino Solicitors release the $10,000 held by them in trust pursuant to Walsh and Blair Lawyers in part payment to the Applicant’s costs Order.

3. The Respondent is to pay a sum of $750 towards to Applicant’s costs within 60 days of the date of these Orders, being by 2 October 2018.

4. All extant Applications are dismissed and the matter is now finalised and will be removed immediately from the docket.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Caro & Pan is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 1209 of 2016

MR CARO

Applicant

And

MS PAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 3^rd August 2018, I delivered oral reasons and made Orders.  What follows are those reasons revised from the transcript.

2. Final property Orders were made, by consent, on 2^nd September 2016.  Among other things, those September 2016 Orders contained provision for the sale of a large number of properties (approximately 20) identified in a schedule to the Orders, and a time-frame within which they were to be sold and or transferred as specified in the Orders.

3. On 16^th March 2018, the Husband filed an Application in a Case by which he sought to finalise the disposition of the properties (and the distribution of proceeds of sale) that were the subject of the September 2016 Orders.  By consent, the September 2016 Orders were amended pursuant to Orders made on 4^th May 2018.

4. Among other things, the self-represented Wife complained in oral argument that she encountered many problems in the repair, and then the sale, of certain of the said properties.  She said further that the time-frame agreed between the parties in the Final Orders ultimately proved to be unrealistic in relation to dealing with certain properties.  Moreover, she also said that in certain unspecified and generally undetailed discussions with the Husband, certain concessions and allowances had been given by him regarding the sale of the outstanding…