PATEY & MALLOCH

In the matter of *Patey & Malloch*, heard before Bennett J, the dispute concerned the enforcement of a previous court order. The wife sought an order that a Registrar sign documents to withdraw a caveat lodged by the husband, as the husband had failed or neglected to do so himself.

The court was required to determine whether to exercise its power under section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* to direct a Registrar to sign the withdrawal of the caveat in place of the husband. Additionally, the court considered the procedural fairness of proceeding with the hearing when the husband had left the court premises prematurely, and the appropriate orders for costs given the husband's default and lack of success.

Bennett J reasoned that the husband's failure to comply with the court's previous orders necessitated the wife's application for enforcement. The court found that the husband's departure from the court during the hearing, despite being warned that the matter would proceed in his absence, did not prevent the court from making orders. The court applied section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975*, which permits the court to make orders for the signing of documents by a Registrar in place of a party who fails to comply with an order.

Consequently, the court ordered that a Registrar sign the withdrawal of the caveat in place of the husband. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife's costs of the enforcement proceedings in the sum of $1991.00, payable within 30 days. The wife's application in a case filed on 30 July 2019 was otherwise dismissed.