Yilmaz & Yilmaz

In *Yilmaz & Yilmaz*, the applicant wife sought the enforcement of previous orders against the respondents, Mr A Yilmaz and Ms B Yilmaz. The respondents sought to set aside these orders and also raised a defence of laches to the enforcement application. The Court was also asked to consider making orders under s 102QB of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) due to the respondents' conduct.

The primary legal issues before the Court were: (1) whether the respondents were precluded from applying to set aside the existing orders by reason of *res judicata* or *Anshun* estoppel; (2) whether the defence of laches was established in relation to the wife's application for enforcement; and (3) whether orders should be made under s 102QB of the Act to restrain the respondents from instituting further proceedings without leave.

The Court found that the respondents were precluded from making an application to set aside the orders due to the principles of *res judicata* and *Anshun* estoppel. Furthermore, the Court determined that the defence of laches was not established by the respondents. Consequently, the Court made orders for the enforcement of the principal sum of $225,000, with specific directions regarding the calculation and payment of interest. The Court also made detailed orders for the sale of a property to satisfy the debt, including the appointment of a trustee for sale and the distribution of sale proceeds. Finally, pursuant to s 102QB of the Act, the Court prohibited the respondents from instituting further proceedings without leave, noting their history of vexatious conduct and the delay and detriment caused to the applicant.