ROLANDS & DIBBS

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Scarlett considered an application by the applicant concerning property division and costs. The dispute involved interim property orders, including an application for an Anton Piller order, and an application for costs against the respondent. The respondent's response was also before the court, having been deemed defective.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had presented sufficient evidence to justify an Anton Piller order, and to consider the appropriate orders regarding property distribution and costs, particularly in light of the respondent's failure to attend court and the defective nature of their filed response.

The court reasoned that the evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient to support an Anton Piller order, a form of search order. However, the court made interim property orders, directing the withdrawal of $11,000 to $12,000 from a controlled monies account to pay out a chattel mortgage on a Ford Focus motor car, and ordering the transfer of the vehicle to the respondent as a partial property distribution under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The court also struck out the respondent's defective response and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of a specific day, with those costs to be paid personally by the respondent's solicitor. Further directions were given for the filing of an amended response and for the parties to attend a conciliation conference.