CDK v AMA

The case of CDK v AMA involved a dispute between de facto partners, CDK and AMA, regarding the enforcement of a property settlement order. CDK sought to vary the terms of the Payment Order made in their favour, which required them to make certain payments to AMA. CDK claimed that it had been impracticable for them to comply with the original order due to unforeseen circumstances and that AMA had engaged in intermeddling conduct that prevented CDK from satisfying the order. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the term "impracticable" in s334(1) of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) justified setting aside the order, and whether there had been a miscarriage of justice or intermeddling conduct that warranted a variation of the order.

The court considered the meaning of "impracticable" in the context of the Property Law Act and determined that it required an impossibility or extreme difficulty in complying with the order. The court found that while CDK had faced challenges in meeting the Payment Order, these difficulties did not reach the level of impracticability required to set aside the order. The court also examined the evidence regarding AMA's alleged intermeddling conduct and concluded that it did not prevent CDK from satisfying the obligations of the order. The court held that while the circumstances had changed since the order was made, this did not automatically make it just and equitable to vary the order. The court noted that the primary consideration was the welfare of any children of the relationship and the need for certainty and finality in property settlements.

The court varied the Payment Order by extending the time for payment, inviting the parties to provide further submissions on the additional time to be allowed and any other orders that might ensure payment within the specified timeframe. The court also invited the parties to submit on the question of costs based on the outcome of the application. This decision highlights the court's cautious approach to varying property settlement orders and the importance of considering the welfare of any children involved in the dispute.