BERTRAND & BERTRAND

In *Bertrand & Bertrand*, the wife sought an interim injunction to restrain the husband from disposing of certain bank shares pending further interim applications. The husband resisted this application. The Australian Taxation Office had commenced proceedings against the husband for debt recovery, and the court noted that the parties' net assets might be modest, suggesting the ATO might wish to be heard. The wife also sought expedition of the final hearing, which the husband did not oppose.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the interim injunction sought by the wife and whether to grant the wife's application for expedition of the final hearing.

Regarding the injunction, the court found that there was a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court reasoned that this was necessary to preserve the status quo pending the final determination of the parties' financial matters, particularly given the potential impact of the ATO's debt recovery proceedings. The application for expedition was dismissed, as the court concluded that the current circumstances did not warrant expediting the final hearing.

The court ordered that the husband be restrained from disposing of the specified bank shares until further order. It also ordered that the wife's and husband's applications concerning the shares be served on the Commissioner of the Australian Taxation Office, granting the ATO leave to request re-listing of the matter. Outstanding financial applications were to be referred to the short matters pool for a hearing. The requirement for a conciliation conference was dispensed with upon certification of private mediation. Further orders addressed disclosure of financial documents, valuations of a business interest, and the filing of evidence for private mediation. Additionally, a single expert was appointed to report on the care, welfare, and development of the children.