Broxham and Broxham & Ors

In *Broxham and Broxham & Ors*, the wife sought interlocutory injunctions from the Family Court of Australia. The first injunction sought to restrain the parties from receiving the proceeds of sale of a property, which were to be distributed according to consent orders made in the New South Wales Supreme Court. The wife contended that the property and its proceeds should instead be included in the pool of assets for division in the *s 79* proceedings between herself and the first respondent (the husband). The second injunction sought to restrain third parties from enforcing a costs order made by consent in the New South Wales Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the wife had established a *prima facie* case for the first injunction, whether the balance of convenience favoured its grant, and whether there was a risk of dissipation of assets by third parties. Regarding the second injunction, the Court was required to determine whether it possessed the jurisdiction to grant an order restraining third parties from enforcing a costs order made in separate proceedings in a different court, and whether such an injunction was reasonably necessary or appropriate for the division of property between the parties to the marriage.

On the first injunction, the Court found that while a *prima facie* case was made out, the wife failed to demonstrate a risk of asset dissipation by the third parties, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction. Consequently, this application was dismissed. For the second injunction, the Court considered *s 90AF* and *s 114* of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested order. The Court reasoned that there was no nexus between the costs order and the *s 79* proceedings, and therefore, the injunction was not reasonably necessary or appropriate for the division of property between the parties to the marriage.

Accordingly, the application in a case filed by the wife was dismissed in its entirety.