Conner and Conner & Anor (No 2)

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Conner (the husband) sought orders for the appointment of a case guardian and a partial property settlement. The wife, Ms A Conner, opposed these applications. An intervener, Ms B Conner (the parties' adult daughter), also sought injunctive relief. The husband is currently in detention awaiting trial on sexual offence charges and claims he requires funds to pay his criminal law firm. The wife argues that now is not the appropriate time for a property distribution, citing the stress on the family and the fact that the husband has already received a partial distribution. The intervener, who is a complainant in the criminal proceedings, sought to restrain the husband from dealing with a portion of his assets, asserting a prospective claim for compensation.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the husband, due to his detention, qualified for a case guardian under the relevant rules, and if so, whether his proposed guardian was appropriate. Secondly, the court had to consider the husband's application for a partial property settlement to fund his legal representation in criminal proceedings. Thirdly, the court needed to assess the intervener's application for injunctive relief, specifically whether she had established a sufficient basis for such an order given her status as a prospective claimant and her failure to file a formal response seeking orders.

Regarding the case guardian application, the court found that "disability" in the rules referred to a health status, not physical detention. The court also rejected the argument that a power of attorney granted to the husband's new partner entitled him to a case guardian, distinguishing the roles of a case guardian and an attorney. On the partial property settlement, the court considered the circumstances to be unjust and inequitable for the type of order sought by the husband, taking into account the impending stress on the wife and children. However, the court allowed the husband to endeavour to charge his interest in the former home to the extent of $175,000 for legal representation or, alternatively, to borrow that amount secured against his interest, with the wife not being responsible for these arrangements. For the intervener's application, the court found that she had not established a sufficient basis for injunctive relief. Her claim was considered speculative, contingent on a criminal conviction, and she had failed to file a formal response seeking orders despite previous directions. The court noted that the intervener's prospective claim was not sufficiently particularised to justify interference with the husband's proprietary rights.

Consequently, the court dismissed the husband's application for a case guardian and the wife's response thereto. The intervener's application for interim orders was also dismissed, with the court noting that save for any issue of costs, her response was dismissed. The court made orders allowing the husband to charge or borrow up to $175,000 against his interest in the former home for legal representation, with the wife to cooperate in facilitating this.