Debono and Debono (No. 2)

In *Debono & Debono (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an interim application brought by Ms. Debono (the wife) against Mr. Debono (the husband). The dispute arose from the wife's alleged incorrect removal as a director of D Pty Ltd, a company that held property ordered by the Court to be sold. This removal, the wife contended, prevented her from fulfilling her role in the sale of the property as previously ordered by the Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it had the power to rectify the wife's directorship status within D Pty Ltd to enable the execution of existing court orders. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if an order could be made under section 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to set aside the instrument by which the wife was removed as a director, thereby allowing her to resume her directorship and facilitate the sale of the property.

Justice Cronin reasoned that section 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) empowered the Court to set aside or restrain the making of an instrument or disposition by a party that was made or proposed to be made to defeat an existing or anticipated court order. The evidence suggested that the husband's actions in January 2013, which led to the wife's removal as a director, had the effect of precluding her from fulfilling her obligations to sell the property through D Pty Ltd. Consequently, the Court found that these actions likely defeated the prior court order for the sale.

The Court ordered that the instrument by which the husband advised the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) of the wife's resignation as a director of D Pty Ltd be set aside. The wife was granted liberty to advise ASIC that she remained a director of the company until further order. All outstanding applications were adjourned, and the costs of the day were reserved.