Yang and Gian (No. 2)

In *Yang and Gian (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife, Ms Yang, for a warrant for possession of the former matrimonial home. The dispute arose because the husband, Mr Gian, had failed to vacate the property by the date stipulated in consent orders made on 30 January 2013. The wife sought to enforce these orders, as she had terminated her own rental accommodation and required the property for herself and her children.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a warrant for possession should be issued under Rule 20.54 of the Family Law Rules 2004, given the husband's non-compliance with the consent orders requiring him to vacate the former matrimonial home. The Court also considered the husband's applications, including one to set aside the consent orders and another seeking urgent sale of the property to pay his debts, which had been adjourned. The Court had previously dismissed an application for contempt against the husband, finding he had not acted in flagrant disregard of the Court's authority.

Justice Aldridge found that the husband had not provided a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the order to vacate the property. While the husband presented evidence of his difficulties in finding rental accommodation due to his contractual employment status, his medical conditions, and fear of infecting friends, the Court was not persuaded that these constituted a sufficient reason to excuse his non-compliance. Applying Rule 20.54, which requires at least seven days' notice before a warrant is issued, the Court ordered that a warrant for possession issue, but not before 16 April 2013, to allow the husband the stipulated notice period. The Court also ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of the application on an indemnity basis, noting that the husband's financial difficulties did not preclude such an order.