Vinicombe and Vinicombe

The case of *Vinicombe and Vinicombe* concerned an application to vary consent orders made on 19 December 2016. The applicant husband and respondent wife sought to alter the terms of their original property settlement. The court was required to determine the specific orders necessary to give effect to the parties' agreement regarding the division of their real estate interests.

The primary legal issues before the court were the precise mechanisms for the transfer of two properties, the H Street Property and the M Street Property, between the parties. This included detailing the responsibilities of each party in relation to discharging existing mortgages, obtaining necessary consents, preparing transfer documentation, and handling the sale of a property if the respondent wife was unable to secure finance or defaulted on mortgage obligations. The court also had to address the management and maintenance of these properties pending their transfer and the consequences of any default by either party in complying with the orders.

Justice Gill applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, specifically section 79A, to vary the existing consent orders. The court's reasoning focused on creating a comprehensive and enforceable framework for the property transfers. This involved detailed provisions for the transfer of title, the discharge of mortgages, and the potential sale of the H Street Property by private treaty or auction, with clear priorities for the distribution of sale proceeds. The orders also included indemnities for liabilities associated with the properties and injunctions to prevent encumbrances or alterations pending transfer. The court further stipulated that if a party failed to comply with the orders, the Registrar of the Family Court could be appointed to execute necessary documents, and the defaulting party would be liable for any costs incurred in enforcing the orders.

The court ordered the variation and replacement of the original consent orders, detailing the specific steps for the transfer of the H Street Property to the respondent wife and the M Street Property to the applicant husband. These orders included provisions for the discharge of mortgages, the management of the properties, and a detailed process for the sale of the H Street Property should the respondent wife fail to secure finance or default on her mortgage obligations. The Registrar was empowered to execute documents in the event of a party's refusal or failure to comply, and the defaulting party was to bear the costs of any subsequent application to the court.