Cirillo & Cirillo (No. 2)

In *Cirillo & Cirillo (No. 2)*, Altobelli J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for interim injunctions. The dispute arose in the context of significant assets available for distribution in family law proceedings. The wife contended that the husband, who had sole control over certain relevant interests, had breached an undertaking given to the Court by listing a primary asset for sale. She sought to prevent the dissipation of joint property.

The Court was required to determine whether the husband's actions constituted a breach of his undertaking to the Court not to deal with the assets of a Trust other than in the ordinary course of business. Furthermore, the Court had to assess whether there was an objective risk that joint property would be dissipated, thereby frustrating any potential judgment in favour of the wife. This involved an exercise of the Court's discretion in granting interim injunctions.

Altobelli J applied the principles for granting interim injunctions as summarised in *Tsiang & Wu* [2019] FamCAFC 128. These principles require the applicant to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, meaning an arguable case or a sufficient likelihood of success. The applicant must also show that the balance of convenience favours the making of the order, which includes demonstrating a danger or risk of dissipation of assets. The Court noted that a qualitative evaluation of all available evidence is necessary to ascertain a sufficiently serious risk of frustration. The risk of dissipation need not be more probable than not, but it must be a real risk with an evidentiary basis, and the Court should not conduct a full trial of disputed evidence at this interlocutory stage.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the wife's application. The costs of and incidental to the application were reserved for determination at the conclusion of the proceedings, and the matter was referred back to the Docket Registrar for further case management.