Juliet and Juliet and Anor

The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Kent J, considered an application by an Applicant Wife against a First Respondent Husband. The dispute concerned the removal of caveats registered against three properties located in New South Wales, the accounting for sale proceeds and loan disbursements related to a Queensland property, and the disclosure of source documents. The proceedings also addressed interim financial arrangements and the conduct of the trial.

The court was required to determine several key issues. These included whether the First Respondent Husband should be compelled to take steps to remove caveats lodged against the M, P, and G properties. Furthermore, the court needed to order the Husband to account for the sale proceeds of the C property and disclose all relevant source documents pertaining to its sale and the disbursement of a significant loan. The court also had to consider interim orders for the Wife to access loan facilities for property expenses and living costs, and to issue subpoenas for evidence. Finally, the court had to address the adjournment of the trial and the consequences of non-compliance with disclosure obligations.

Kent J ordered the First Respondent Husband to attend upon solicitors to facilitate the removal of the caveats at his cost. In the event of the Husband's refusal or neglect, the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia was appointed to execute the necessary documents on his behalf. The Applicant Wife was authorised to draw on loan facilities to cover mortgage payments, outgoings on the properties, and her living expenses. The Husband was ordered to file and serve his affidavit of evidence in chief by a specified date, with the Wife granted liberty to file a replying affidavit. The Husband was also directed to account for the sale proceeds of the C property and forthwith disclose all source documents relating to its sale, the disbursement of those proceeds, and a specific bank loan. The Wife was granted leave to issue a subpoena upon a real estate agency. The trial, initially scheduled for early June 2012, was vacated and adjourned to commence in July 2012. The court also ordered that should the Husband materially fail to comply with his disclosure and filing obligations, the trial would proceed on an undefended basis.