Barre & Barre and Ors

In the matter of *Barre & Barre and Ors*, Harper J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the husband's former lawyers, Q Pty Ltd, and a third respondent, Ms Gilliam, concerning funds frozen by court order. The wife sought to enforce a Binding Financial Agreement, but made no claim on the frozen funds, which were acknowledged to be owned by a company controlled by the husband, Barre Pty Ltd. The dispute also involved a respondent claiming to be the de facto partner of the husband, who had loaned money to the husband and his company.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to discharge existing freezing orders over funds held in a controlled monies account, and how those funds should be distributed. Additionally, the Court had to consider the application by the husband's former lawyers to be joined to the proceedings as a judgment creditor, having obtained a default judgment for unpaid legal fees. While initially seeking joinder, the lawyers later sought to be heard as *amicus curiae* in support of their own interests.

Harper J determined that the freezing orders should be discharged as the wife had no claim on the frozen funds for the enforcement of the Binding Financial Agreement. The Court exercised its discretion to allow the former lawyers to make submissions as *amicus curiae*, despite their application being made after the final hearing and while judgment was reserved. The Court reasoned that the funds were not subject to the wife's claim and that the company controlled by the husband, Barre Pty Ltd, was entitled to the funds.

Consequently, the Court ordered the discharge of all existing freezing orders relating to the funds in the controlled monies account. The balance of the funds was to be released to Barre Pty Ltd, with directions for Barre Pty Ltd to pay $35,000 to Ms Gilliam from those funds. Applications by Q Pty Ltd and Ms Gilliam were otherwise dismissed.