Daniels and Findlay

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Daniels (the applicant husband) sought to enforce previous property settlement orders against Ms Findlay (the respondent wife). The dispute concerned the distribution of proceeds from an insurance policy with AAMI Insurance Limited, which arose after the wife failed to comply with earlier court orders to divide a sum of approximately $253,000 and to sell a property. The wife had moved the funds out of the jurisdiction and subsequently, the property was destroyed by fire. The husband had insured the property, leading to the current dispute over the insurance payout.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the husband leave to proceed with his application in the absence of the respondent, and whether to make orders restraining the wife from dissipating the insurance proceeds and directing AAMI Insurance Limited to pay the proceeds into a solicitor's trust account for distribution. The court also considered the legal basis for such orders, specifically referencing sections 114 and 90AF of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and whether the requirements of section 90AF were met. Finally, the court had to determine whether to depart from the usual rule of each party bearing their own costs and make an order for costs in favour of the husband.

Justice Cronin found that the wife had been adequately served with the application, despite her non-appearance, and granted leave to proceed. The court reasoned that the orders sought were in aid of enforcement of existing property settlement orders, and that section 90AF provided a sufficient basis for directing the insurer to pay the proceeds into a trust account. The court was satisfied that the requirements of section 90AF, including the lack of adverse taxation or social security effects on the parties and AAMI, and the administrative costs, were met. The court also determined that the wife's persistent non-compliance with court orders justified a departure from the usual costs rule, and ordered the wife to pay the husband's costs.

The court ordered that Ms Findlay be restrained from dissipating the insurance proceeds, and that AAMI Insurance Limited pay the proceeds to the trust account of Parke Lawyers for distribution according to prior court orders. Upon receipt of the proceeds, outstanding warrants were to be discharged. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs fixed at $3100, to be paid from the trust funds. The application was otherwise dismissed.