THORNLEY & THORNLEY

In the matter of *THORNLEY & THORNLEY*, heard before McClelland J, the dispute concerned an application by the husband filed on 26 October 2018. The wife had provided an undertaking regarding the proceeds of the sale of a property located in Suburb D, specifically that these proceeds would be used to pay off mortgages on properties in Suburb A and Suburb B, and that she would not alter her agreement with C Lawyers concerning a $700,000 payment into their trust account.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the husband's application should be dismissed, given the wife's undertakings. This required the court to consider the adequacy and enforceability of the wife's undertakings in resolving the financial aspects of the dispute between the parties.

McClelland J dismissed the husband's application, noting the wife's undertakings. The court's reasoning appears to have been that these undertakings provided sufficient assurance regarding the management of the property sale proceeds and the agreed payment, thereby resolving the immediate concerns raised by the husband's application. The court also reserved the parties' costs of the hearing and ordered that within 28 days, each party was to provide the other with a settlement offer in accordance with rule 10.06 of the *Family Law Rules 2004*.