Vaughan and Bele

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Vaughan (the applicant) sought orders against Ms Bele (the respondent) concerning the enforcement of a prior court order made in December 2011, which mandated the sale of a property. The sale had proceeded to contract, with settlement scheduled for 2 July. The applicant's current application, filed on 12 June 2012, sought specific orders related to the production of the property's duplicate certificate of title, the disclosure of communications with tenants, and an injunction restraining the respondent from communicating directly with the purchaser and their conveyancers.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the orders sought by the applicant, particularly concerning the production of the title, disclosure of communications, and the injunction. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicant's request for costs on an indemnity basis, assessing whether the circumstances justified a departure from the usual rule that parties bear their own costs. The respondent had raised arguments regarding the validity of the legislation underpinning the original order and had sought an adjournment, which was rejected.

Justice Cronin found that the original order of December 2011 remained valid and enforceable until set aside. The evidence indicated that the respondent had taken steps to thwart the settlement of the property sale, justifying the orders sought. The court reasoned that the respondent's focus on jurisdictional arguments, despite the existence of retrospective validating legislation, and her failure to make properly founded applications for stays, had caused unnecessary expense to the applicant. The court also noted that the sale had implications for non-parties who were entitled to certainty.

Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to produce the duplicate certificate of title to the applicant's solicitors to facilitate the sale settlement. It also ordered the respondent to produce all non-privileged communications with the tenants and granted an injunction restraining her from communicating with the purchaser and their conveyancers except through her solicitor. The court further ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis in respect of the application and actions taken to enforce the December 2011 orders, with the quantum to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.