FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MCMILLAN & MCMILLAN | [2016] FamCA 387 |
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – S105 Application for enforcement – application by the wife for enforcement of orders – consideration of the discretionary power of the Court to enforce orders pursuant to section 105 of the Family Law Act (Cth) 1975 – where the equitable bar of laches is not applicable – where delay per se does not readily excite equitable intervention – relevance of equitable defences – limitation periods for enforcement of judgement – limitation periods in relation to recovery of interest.
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 80, 84, 105, 105(1) |
| Barrak v Barakat (2005) FLC 93-234 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr McMillan |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms McMillan |
| FILE NUMBER: | CSC | 355 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 23 May 2016 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Townsville |
| PLACE HEARD: | Cairns |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Tree J |
| HEARING DATE: | 8 February 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPLICANT: | In person |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Fellows |
| SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Williams Graham Carman |
Orders
That further action on the wife’s Enforcement Warrant issued 15 June 2015 be permanently stayed.
That otherwise all extant applications be dismissed and the matter removed from the list of active pending cases.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym McMillan & McMillan has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CAIRNS |
FILE NUMBER: CSC355/2015
| Mr McMillan |
Applicant
And
| Ms McMillan |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
On 15 June 2015, at the request of Ms McMillan (“the wife”) a Registrar of the Family Court issued an Enforcement Warrant pursuant to Part 20.3 of the Family Law Rules authorising the Enforcement Officer to seize and sell the property of Mr McMillan (“the husband”). By Application in a Case filed 14 September 2015 the husband, amongst other relief, sought an order that the Enforcement Warrant be dismissed, struck out or stayed. Additionally he sought some more flamboyant relief most of which, as I shall shortly discuss,…
Continue reading McMillan & McMillan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McMillan & McMillan [2016] FamCA 387
- Case
- [2016] FamCA 387
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife's application to enforce the 2015 warrant should be permanently stayed. This required the court to consider the principles governing the grant of a permanent stay of enforcement proceedings, particularly in circumstances where there has been a significant delay in seeking enforcement.
Tree J granted the permanent stay, finding that the wife's prolonged inaction in enforcing the warrant had prejudiced the husband. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning the equitable doctrine of laches, which allows for the barring of equitable claims where there has been an unreasonable delay in their assertion, and where that delay has caused prejudice to the respondent. The court determined that the delay in this instance was unreasonable and that the husband had suffered prejudice as a result.
Consequently, the court ordered that further action on the wife’s Enforcement Warrant issued 15 June 2015 be permanently stayed, and that all other extant applications be dismissed, with the matter removed from the list of active pending cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That further action on the wife’s Enforcement Warrant issued 15 June 2015 be permanently stayed.
2.
That otherwise all extant applications be dismissed and the matter removed from the list of active pending cases.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.