George and George (No 2)
Case
•
[2016] FamCA 857
•6 October 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
George and George (No 2) [2016] FamCA 857
[2016] FamCA 857
6 October 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *George and George (No 2)*, the parties were before the court concerning the enforcement of existing family law orders. The dispute centred on an outstanding amount declared to be owed under previous orders, which was to be satisfied from the proceeds of a property sale. Additionally, the wife sought orders to facilitate her access to Medibank records to ensure the children's health insurance was maintained at the required level.
The court was required to determine the precise amount owing under the final orders, specifically in relation to non-periodic child support payments. It also needed to consider the mechanism for satisfying this debt from the husband's share of the proceeds from the sale of a specified property. Furthermore, the court had to address the wife's need for authority to access and manage the children's private health insurance with Medibank, including making inquiries, updating cover, receiving invoices, making payments in case of default, and obtaining policy details and rebate information.
Watts J reasoned that a declaration was necessary to specify the exact sum of $30,116.99 as payable by the husband for non-periodic child support, pursuant to earlier orders. This amount was then ordered to be paid directly to the wife from the husband's portion of the sale proceeds of the property at B Street, Suburb M. To ensure the children's health insurance obligations were met, the court mandated that the husband take all necessary steps to grant the wife comprehensive authority to deal with Medibank Private. This included powers to inquire about, update, and manage the children's health insurance accounts, and to make payments if the husband defaulted. In the event of the husband's non-compliance with these directions, the wife was appointed under section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to execute any necessary documents on his behalf.
Finally, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to her applications, totalling $6,000, which were also to be satisfied from his share of the property sale proceeds.
The court was required to determine the precise amount owing under the final orders, specifically in relation to non-periodic child support payments. It also needed to consider the mechanism for satisfying this debt from the husband's share of the proceeds from the sale of a specified property. Furthermore, the court had to address the wife's need for authority to access and manage the children's private health insurance with Medibank, including making inquiries, updating cover, receiving invoices, making payments in case of default, and obtaining policy details and rebate information.
Watts J reasoned that a declaration was necessary to specify the exact sum of $30,116.99 as payable by the husband for non-periodic child support, pursuant to earlier orders. This amount was then ordered to be paid directly to the wife from the husband's portion of the sale proceeds of the property at B Street, Suburb M. To ensure the children's health insurance obligations were met, the court mandated that the husband take all necessary steps to grant the wife comprehensive authority to deal with Medibank Private. This included powers to inquire about, update, and manage the children's health insurance accounts, and to make payments if the husband defaulted. In the event of the husband's non-compliance with these directions, the wife was appointed under section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to execute any necessary documents on his behalf.
Finally, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to her applications, totalling $6,000, which were also to be satisfied from his share of the property sale proceeds.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Consent
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
2