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

Dis­missal for Dissent?

The recent unfair dis­missal deci­sion of the Fair Work Com­mis­sion, Shaun Turn­er v Dare­bin City Coun­cil [2025] FWC 1763, in which Deputy…

Con­struc­tion con­tract time­frames and their inter­ac­tion with the NSW Secu­ri­ty of Pay­ment legislation.

Mark Glynn, Con­struc­tion Part­ner at Swaab con­sid­ers the recent deci­sion of Shar­vain Facades Pty Ltd (Admin­is­tra­tors Appoint­ed) v Roberts Co (NSW)…

10 Tips For Stra­ta Reme­di­al Con­struc­tion Contracts

Are you won­der­ing why your stra­ta work to repair or main­tain your stra­ta build­ing is over bud­get, rid­dled with delays…

In the News

Press Release | New Senior Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Joshua Bernie

With more than 10 years’ expe­ri­ence in stra­ta and con­struc­tion dis­pute res­o­lu­tion across Aus­tralia and the UK, Joshua brings with him…

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…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information