PEROT & PEROT

The Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between Ms Perot (the wife) and Mr Perot (the husband) concerning the enforcement of consent orders made on 12 June 2012. The wife sought interest on a capital sum that the husband had failed to pay within the stipulated timeframe. The husband, in turn, sought to avoid paying interest and also applied for the wife to contribute to the costs of a property valuation.

The court was required to determine whether the wife was entitled to interest on the unpaid capital sum and, if so, at what rate. It also needed to consider the husband's application to prevent the accrual of interest and his claim for the wife to contribute to valuation costs. Furthermore, the court had to address the outstanding issue of costs, specifically a previous costs order made on 14 November 2012, and how a sum of money should be secured to satisfy the wife's entitlement to costs pending agreement or assessment.

In relation to the interest claim, the court applied the principles established in *Stephens & Stephens & Anor (Enforcement)*, which affirmed that section 117B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) provides for statutory interest on money orders unless a court exercises its discretion under s 117B(2) to vary or waive this. The court found that the husband had failed to comply with the property orders and had deliberately chosen a course of action that delayed the sale of the property, thereby benefiting himself. The court determined that it was in the interests of justice for interest to accrue at the statutory rate prescribed by Rule 17.03 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth), noting that this rate serves not only a compensatory purpose but also encourages compliance with court orders. The husband's application to pay a lower rate of interest was dismissed. Regarding the valuation costs, the court found that the husband had unilaterally appointed a valuer, contrary to the agreed process, and dismissed his application for the wife to pay half of those costs.

The court ordered that the wife was entitled to calculate and receive interest on the capital sum at the statutory rate from 10 September 2012, and the husband's application to prevent this was dismissed. A sum of $3,500 was to be placed in trust to satisfy the wife's costs pending agreement or assessment, and the husband's application for the wife to pay half of the valuation costs was also dismissed.