Not nec­es­sar­i­ly.

In a recent Fam­i­ly Law case the hus­band found out the hard way that he should not have delayed com­ply­ing with Court Orders for his prop­er­ty settlement.

The case of Black­well & Scott [2017] FAM­CAFC 77 involved a cou­ple who at the end of their 10 year de fac­to rela­tion­ship agreed to a prop­er­ty set­tle­ment divid­ing their assets equally.

The Con­sent Orders required the hus­band to pay the wife the sum of $130,000 with­in 90 days and he was to retain an invest­ment property.

The hus­band delayed the pay­ment for 13 months. That was 2014 and 2015 in the hot Syd­ney prop­er­ty mar­ket. In that time the val­ue of the invest­ment prop­er­ty had increased so much that the sum of $130,000 no longer rep­re­sent­ed one half of the asset pool.

The wife brought pro­ceed­ings to set aside the Con­sent Orders. She took the posi­tion that the Con­sent Orders were nego­ti­at­ed on the basis that they effect­ed an equal divi­sion between the par­ties of their assets. With a pay­ment to her of $130,000 even with inter­est, cal­cu­lat­ed at $12,000, she would no longer be receiv­ing one half but sig­nif­i­cant­ly less.

She was suc­cess­ful at tri­al and the Full Court dis­missed the hus­band’s appeal.

The hus­band would no doubt have been regret­ting his delay because had he com­plied with the Court Orders prompt­ly and not kept the wife wait­ing, the set­tle­ment would have been finalised and he would have been enti­tled to ben­e­fit from the increase in the prop­er­ty’s value.

You need to be sure when reach­ing a prop­er­ty set­tle­ment that the time­frame for any pay­ment is real­is­tic and you have appro­pri­ate finance in place. It is impor­tant you com­ply with Court Orders at the times you agreed to. The con­se­quences for breach of orders can be sig­nif­i­cant because you prob­a­bly will not be able to bring the oth­er par­ty or the Court back to the orig­i­nal agree­ment after you have delayed.

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Ope­nAI’s screen­less future on pause amidst trade mark dispute

Back­groundIn ear­ly May, Ope­nAI sur­prised the tech world with news of an esti­mat­ed $6.4 bil­lion part­ner­ship and acqui­si­tion involv­ing ​“io”…

Impor­tant Stra­ta Law Changes — Effec­tive 1 July 2025

The Stra­ta Schemes Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment Act 2025 (Amend­ing Act) intro­duces fur­ther reform in Gov­ern­men­t’s ongo­ing review of the stra­ta legislation. On 1 July…

Own­ers Cor­po­ra­tions / Asso­ci­a­tions now sub­ject to Unfair Con­tract Terms 

Under the new stra­ta law reforms com­menc­ing 1 July 2025 (the Stra­ta Schemes Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment Act 2025 (No. 14) NSW) a key change…

In the News

Press Release | We are pleased to announce five senior pro­mo­tions in key prac­tice areas of the firm effec­tive, 1 July 2025

Con­grat­u­la­tions:Maris­sa Arag­o­na — AssociateRamesh Chamala — AssociateAaron Boz — AssociateWilliam Clement — Senior AssociateKel­lie Van Mun­ster — Spe­cial Counsel “I am per­son­al­ly delight­ed…

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 27 June 2025

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ABC may face sig­nif­i­cant penal­ties’ after can­cel cul­ture’ sack­ing ruled unlaw­ful”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 26 June 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“ABC may face ​‘sig­nif­i­cant penal­ties’ after ​‘can­cel cul­ture’ sack­ing ruled unlaw­ful”, pub­lished in…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information