Betro & Grima (No 3)

In Betro & Grima (No 3), the wife, Ms Grima, sought to join the husband's brother as a party to the proceedings and obtain various injunctive reliefs. The wife alleged that the husband's brother was involved in the management and control of certain companies, and that these companies were used to dissipate marital assets. The husband denied any wrongdoing and argued that the wife had not established an arguable case for the relief sought.

The court found that the wife's contentions were largely based on suspicion and conjecture, and that there was no evidence to support her claims. The court noted that the wife had failed to provide any foundation for her allegations, and that the explanations provided by the husband and his brother were plausible. The court held that the wife had not established an arguable case for the relief sought, and dismissed the wife's application for joinder and injunctive relief.

The court also found that the husband's brother was not a necessary party to the proceedings, as there was no evidence to suggest that he was involved in the dissipation of marital assets. The court held that the husband's brother had provided a satisfactory explanation for the registration of the companies in question, and that there was no basis for the wife's allegations.

The court's decision in Betro & Grima (No 3) highlights the importance of establishing an arguable case when seeking joinder and injunctive relief in family law proceedings. The court found that the wife's allegations were not supported by evidence, and that the explanations provided by the husband and his brother were plausible. The court held that the wife had not met the threshold required to establish an arguable case, and dismissed her application accordingly.

The final orders of the court were that the wife's application for joinder and injunctive relief be dismissed, and that there be no order as to costs.