CHIODO & SHAW

In the Family Court of Australia, Ryan J considered applications by the applicant, Mr R Chiodo, to discharge child maintenance, spousal maintenance, and property settlement orders made in 1990, and an application by the respondent, Ms Shaw, for enforcement of those same orders. The applicant also sought the recusal of the judicial officer and an adjournment of proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether "just cause" existed to retrospectively discharge the maintenance orders under section 66W of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and whether any grounds for relief under section 79A of the Act were established for the property settlement orders. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW) applied to the enforcement proceedings, and if the respondent had delayed in seeking enforcement, impacting the ability to recover arrears beyond 12 months. The court also addressed the applicant's application for recusal based on a perceived conflict of interest and the applicant's request for an adjournment.

Regarding the discharge of orders, the court found that the applicant had failed to establish "just cause." This was due to evidence demonstrating the respondent and children lived in parlous financial circumstances as a result of the applicant's non-compliance, and the applicant's failure to provide full and frank disclosure, including a course of action to dispose of assets to avoid enforcement. The court applied the principles from *Wreford & Caley* (2010) 43 Fam LR 1, finding no just cause to discharge the maintenance orders. Similarly, no grounds for relief under section 79A were established for the property settlement orders. For the enforcement proceedings, the court applied *Barrak and Ors & Barakak* (2005) FLC 93-235, holding that the respondent's actions constituted an enforcement of existing obligations, not an action on a cause of action, and therefore the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW) did not apply. The court also noted that the "12-month rule" regarding arrears was no longer the prevailing law. The application for recusal was refused, as the circumstances did not give rise to an apprehension of bias in a fair-minded lay observer. The application for an adjournment was also refused, given the applicant's litigation experience and sufficient time to retain legal representation.

The court ordered the applicant to pay significant sums for child maintenance, spousal maintenance, and property settlement arrears, including interest on the property order. Further orders were made to facilitate the enforcement of these amounts, including provisions for the transfer of property interests and restraints on the applicant's ability to sell or encumber assets, and to depart Australia. The Australian Federal Police were requested to maintain the applicant's name on the PACE alert system. Outstanding applications were dismissed, subject to any application for costs by the respondent.