Lovine and Conner (No 2)

In *Lovine & Conner (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband seeking to dismiss an enforcement proceeding on the grounds that the Court was *functus officio*. The dispute concerned outstanding invoices for the construction of a property, which was an asset in the parties' property settlement proceedings. The wife sought orders for the husband to pay these outstanding invoices, arguing that his obligation arose from previous court orders made on 5 May 2010.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the husband's payment of $3.2 million, pursuant to later orders made by Mushin J on 10 June 2011, discharged his prior obligations under the May 2010 orders, thereby rendering the Court *functus officio* in relation to the enforcement of those outstanding invoices. Specifically, the Court had to determine the meaning and effect of paragraph 16 of the June 2011 orders, which stated that upon payment of the $3.2 million, all prior orders would be discharged.

Justice Cronin reasoned that for a discharge of accrued liabilities to be effective, court orders must explicitly state this, either by referring to a discharge *ab initio* or by specifically mentioning accrued and unpaid obligations. The Court held that paragraph 16 of the June 2011 orders did not contain such explicit language and therefore did not discharge any outstanding payments that had accrued under the May 2010 orders. Applying the principle that the Court should interpret its orders based on their face, unless there is patent ambiguity, Justice Cronin found that the husband's obligation to pay the outstanding invoices remained. The husband's application that the Court was *functus officio* was refused. Following discussions between counsel, a compromise was reached, and further orders were made.