Adams and Adams ( No. 7)

In *Adams and Adams (No. 7)*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne considered an application by the independent children’s lawyer and the wife for injunctive relief concerning funds held by the husband. The independent children’s lawyer sought to preserve $20,000 of moneys invested in the husband's name with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, in anticipation of a future application for costs. The wife made a similar application. The husband had previously stated that approximately $65,000 was invested, with a portion of these funds originating from his parents and intended for the child, V.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an injunction to restrain the husband from dealing with $40,000 of the invested moneys, pending further order. This application was framed as being in aid of a potential future costs order under section 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and the court considered principles relevant to applications for security for costs, including the financial circumstances of the parties, the prospects of success of the costs application, whether the claim was bona fide, and the potential for the order to stifle litigation.

Bennett J reasoned that the husband had not provided sufficient information regarding his ability to satisfy a costs order, particularly in light of his assertion that the funds belonged to his child, V. While acknowledging the husband's claim that the money was V's, the court found that freezing $40,000 of the funds would not necessarily prejudice V's interests, especially pending the husband's opportunity to make further submissions. The court applied the principles of balancing conveniences and inconveniences, and considering the justice and injustice of the matter, in determining whether the injunction was proper.

The court ordered that the independent children’s lawyer and the wife have leave to make oral applications for security of costs or injunctive relief. The operation of previous orders restricting the husband's right to be heard was suspended to allow him to oppose the oral application. Crucially, the husband was restrained from withdrawing, dealing with, or disposing of $40,000 of the moneys invested in his name or the child V's name with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia until further order. The court reserved liberty to apply generally and indicated it would hear the husband further once he provided written submissions in opposition to the continuation of the order.