SUKOVSKY & VERANOVSKY

In the matter of *Sukovsky & Veranovsky*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned the wife's refusal or failure to sign settlement documents required for the sale of a property, despite having indicated she would do so. The husband sought an order authorising him to execute these documents in her name.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the power under Section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to authorise the husband to sign documents on behalf of the wife to effect the settlement of the property sale. A secondary issue related to costs, specifically whether the wife should be ordered to pay the husband's costs, and on what basis.

Cronin J found that Section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) provided the necessary authority for the court to make the order sought by the husband. The court reasoned that the wife's conduct in failing to sign the documents after indicating she would, effectively prevented the completion of the settlement. Regarding costs, the court noted that the wife had been put on notice as to the risks of a costs order, and therefore ordered indemnity costs in favour of the husband.

The court ordered that the husband be authorised to execute, in the wife's name, all necessary documents to complete the settlement of the property sale, including the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Discharge of Mortgage Authority. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs in the sum of $7,020, to be deducted from her settlement proceeds. The husband's application filed on 21 December 2018 and the wife's response filed on 14 January 2019 were dismissed.