D Attorneys & Sresbodan & Ors

In the Family Court of Australia, Aldridge J considered an application by D Attorneys, the former lawyers for Mr Sresbodan, seeking to enforce a Costs Assessment Order made in their favour. The dispute centred on the method of enforcement, with D Attorneys contending that rule 20.07(d) of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) empowered the court to order payment directly from a controlled monies account. Mr Sresbodan also filed an application seeking various interlocutory orders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to make a direct order for payment from the controlled monies account to D Attorneys, or alternatively, whether the appropriate mechanism for enforcement was the issuance of a Third Party Debt Notice. A further issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant the interlocutory orders sought by Mr Sresbodan.

Aldridge J reasoned that while there was doubt as to the court's jurisdiction to make a direct order for payment to D Attorneys from the controlled monies account, the court did have the power to issue a Third Party Debt Notice to enforce the Costs Assessment Order. The court found it had no jurisdiction to make the interlocutory orders sought by Mr Sresbodan.

Consequently, the court ordered that the existing freezing orders be varied to permit D Attorneys to apply for and serve a Third Party Debt Notice on the holder of the Controlled Monies Account, and that the holder be permitted to comply with such a notice. The court also ordered the issuance of the Third Party Debt Notice and dispensed with the requirement to file an affidavit under rule 20.32 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). Mr Sresbodan's application was dismissed.