Senior and Anderson

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Senior (the applicant wife) sought to enforce previous orders against Mr Anderson (the respondent husband) concerning the sale of a property. The dispute arose from the husband's persistent non-compliance with a 2012 property division order, which mandated the sale of the property at I Street, Suburb B, with specific terms for its conduct and the distribution of proceeds. Despite numerous attempts by the wife to secure the husband's cooperation, he had failed to facilitate the sale, leading to protracted litigation and multiple appeals.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's application for an order appointing her as trustee for the sale of the property and to enforce the terms of the original order. This involved considering the husband's various applications, including a request for an adjournment, an application for the judge's disqualification, and an attempt to relitigate issues already finally determined by the High Court. The court also had to address the wife's application for costs.

Justice Cronin refused the husband's application for an adjournment, finding him to be astute and capable of managing his case, despite his claims of stress. The husband's application for disqualification was withdrawn. The court dismissed the husband's attempt to relitigate concluded matters, noting that the High Court had already refused special leave to appeal on the basis that no principle was involved. The court found that the husband had exhausted his legal avenues and that there was no basis to refuse the wife's application to enforce the sale order, particularly given his lack of cooperation. The court also considered the wife's application for costs, noting the husband's non-compliance with court orders and the wife's efforts to resolve the matter amicably.

The court ordered that the property be sold by the wife as trustee for sale, in accordance with the terms of her application, and that the husband pay the wife's costs fixed at $4000, to be paid from his entitlement arising from the sale. The husband's applications were dismissed, and the wife's application for an order under s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 was noted as having been previously made.