Event and Time
Event Description
This case involves a dispute between a de facto couple, Ms. Pascal (the de facto wife) and Mr. Hannigan (the de facto husband), regarding the sale of jointly owned properties after a consent order was issued by the court on July 7, 2021. Following the consent order, the relationship deteriorated, leading to multiple applications for court intervention due to perceived non-compliance and obstruction regarding the sale of the properties.
Application and Claims
- Ms. Pascal filed an application on July 29, 2021, requesting permission to have sole conduct over the sale of two properties, claiming Mr. Hannigan was obstructing the sale process.
- Mr. Hannigan filed a response, seeking to set aside the final consent orders, alleging the wife did not adhere to prior agreements and claiming violations related to prior intervention orders.
- On August 13, 2021, Mr. Hannigan filed a contravention application against Ms. Pascal, asserting she obstructed compliance with the orders.
Judicial Decisions
1. Dismissal of Mr. Hannigan’s applications filed on August 9, 2021, and August 13, 2021. 2. Variation of the final order dated July 7, 2021, allowing Ms. Pascal to have sole conduct of the sale of both properties. 3. Requirement for Mr. Hannigan to pay Ms. Pascal's costs, which were fixed at $6,682.00.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Ms. Pascal's Claims:
- Asserts Mr. Hannigan is obstructing the sales of the properties by refusing offers and failing to cooperate with the engagement of real estate agents. - Claims previous consent orders have not been honored by Mr. Hannigan, impacting her ability to sell. - Relies on affidavits and emails to establish the need for immediate action, including a higher offer on the farm than set in the final orders.
- Mr. Hannigan’s Arguments:
- Claims the court's consent orders should be set aside due to his health and lack of understanding during the negotiation. - Argues that Mr. G (the real estate agent) is not an appropriate choice and ideologically believes the farm is worth significantly less than Ms. Pascal claims. - Accuses Ms. Pascal of making false accusations and not complying with other financial obligations, such as mortgage repayments.