FINDLAY & DANIELS

In the matter of *Findlay & Daniels*, Dessau J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the wife concerning interlocutory orders and costs. The dispute involved the clarification of entity names within existing orders and the wife's application for a stay of previous orders.

The court was required to determine whether to dismiss certain of the wife's applications, adjourn others, and amend existing orders to reflect the correct naming of a corporate entity. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate orders for costs arising from the day's proceedings.

Dessau J ordered that specific paragraphs of the wife's applications be dismissed and that her application for a stay of orders made on 21 January 2011 be adjourned to a later date. Crucially, the court amended the orders of 21 January 2011 to clarify that references to "A Pty Ltd", "AP Pty Ltd", or "AP" were to be read as "A-P Pty Ltd". This amendment extended the authority of the Registrar to sign documents on behalf of the wife, ensuring that any such references in documents would be deemed to be to the corrected entity name. The wife was also ordered to pay the husband's wasted costs for the day, fixed at $1,980. A transcript of the reasons given was to be expedited and retained on the court file.