Chang & Song

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1, heard an application by the husband for urgent injunctions. The wife and the second to fourth respondents disputed the urgency of the application and sought an adjournment to allow them to properly present their case. The matter involved complex property and business interests, including companies, trusts, and real estate, with not only the husband and wife but also the wife's parents and other third parties involved. The husband sought an extensive range of injunctive and other orders against the wife and the second to fourth respondents.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband had established sufficient urgency to warrant the immediate granting of the extraordinary raft of injunctive orders he sought. This involved determining if there was a prima facie case demonstrating a likelihood of success and a need to preserve the status quo, particularly given the involvement of third-party interests and the complexity of the business structures. The court also considered whether the husband's material adequately supported his claims of asset depletion and the necessity for his proposed involvement in the day-to-day operations of the businesses, from which he had been absent for several years.

Justice Henderson found that the husband had not established a prima facie case for urgency. While acknowledging the potential for some assets to be considered matrimonial property, the court noted that the husband's assertions of urgency were largely based on a letter from July 2021 concerning past events and ongoing franchise negotiations. The court emphasised that injunctive powers should not be exercised lightly, especially when third-party interests are involved, and that the wife, who had recently given birth, and the other respondents required adequate time to respond to the husband's extensive allegations. Furthermore, the court expressed caution regarding the husband's claims, particularly his assertion of not being a beneficiary of a trust that the respondents admitted he was. The impending valuation of the businesses, expected within weeks, was also a crucial factor in deferring a decision on the urgent application.

Consequently, the court granted the adjournment application made by the wife and supported by the second, third, and fourth respondents. The matter was to be allocated a two-day hearing date to be fixed, and a detailed schedule for the filing and service of affidavits and other documents by all parties was ordered. The costs of the hearing were reserved.