Cabot & Cabot and Ors

In the matter of *Cabot & Cabot*, Mr Cabot (the husband) sought interlocutory relief against Ms S (the second respondent) and Ms S Pty Ltd as Trustee of the Ms S Family Trust (the third respondent), who were third parties to his marriage proceedings with Ms Cabot (the first respondent). The husband sought an injunction to restrain the third parties from dissipating matrimonial property and disclosure of documents relevant to the wife's financial circumstances and potential interests in assets held by the third parties. The third parties contended they had been improperly joined to the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether the husband had established the necessity for injunctive relief to protect his interests and prevent the depletion of the matrimonial property pool. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevance of the documents sought in disclosure to the proceedings, specifically in relation to the financial circumstances of the third parties and their connection to the marriage. The court also considered the third parties' application to be dismissed from the proceedings.

The court applied principles concerning the granting of interlocutory injunctions in family law proceedings, drawing on authorities such as *Labonte & Labonte* and *Cardile*. The established legal principles require an applicant to demonstrate a real risk of assets being disposed of and a real ground for believing that this risk will prejudice the applicant's claim for a remedy at final hearing. Mere assertion is insufficient; solid evidence of a danger of dissipation or disposal of assets must be produced. The court also considered the requirements of section 90AF of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding orders and injunctions binding third parties, including the need for the relief to be reasonably necessary or appropriate for the division of property and for procedural fairness to be accorded to the third party.

Ultimately, the court made no orders for an injunction against the third parties. However, it did make orders for specific disclosure from Ms S, requiring her to provide copies of various bank statements, probate documents, trust deeds, and distribution records within 28 days. The court also ordered the husband to particularise his claims against the second, third, and fourth respondents, with subsequent procedural steps for the third parties to respond and potentially seek further particulars. The husband's application for an injunction was dismissed, and the third parties' application to dismiss the husband's claim against them was otherwise dismissed, with liberty to approach the Associate for further listing to hear that application.