CHESTER & CHESTER

In the matter of *Chester & Chester*, Forrest J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for an interim payment and an injunction. The wife sought $150,000 to meet her day-to-day expenses, while the husband proposed a payment of $30,000. The wife had no income or means of support, and the husband controlled all marital property and superannuation. The wife also sought an injunction to restrain the husband from dealing with property without providing her with prior written notice.

The court was required to determine whether an interim payment to the wife was warranted and, if so, in what amount. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an injunction was necessary to preserve the wife's potential claims against the husband's assets.

Forrest J reasoned that the interests of justice demanded an immediate payment to the wife for her use, finding $150,000 to be an appropriate sum. The court was satisfied that an injunction was also warranted, despite the husband's contention that there was no evidence he would act to prejudice the wife's claims, as the circumstances justified such a protective measure.

Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $150,000 from a joint bank account. The court also granted an injunction restraining the husband from dealing with specific real property and company shares, or taking certain actions in relation to those companies and a superannuation fund, without providing the wife with at least twenty-one days' written notice. The matter was adjourned for case management.