EDGERTON & STACKHOUSE

The Family Court of Australia heard an application by Ms Edgerton (the applicant wife) against Mr Stackhouse (the respondent husband) concerning interlocutory orders. The primary dispute revolved around the wife's application for an injunction to restrain the husband from dissipating the remaining $200,000 of a dividend payment he received. The parties also entered into a range of consent orders addressing procedural matters, including access to documents produced under subpoena and the husband's restraint from selling or transferring shareholdings in five nominated companies.

The court was required to determine whether the wife had established a prima facie case for the interlocutory injunction sought, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting such an order. Specifically, the court needed to assess if preserving the $200,000 was necessary to protect the parties' matrimonial pool of assets, given the overall financial circumstances of the parties and the husband's significant business interests.

Justice Harper found that the wife had not established a prima facie case. While acknowledging the complexity of the parties' financial circumstances and the wife's concerns about the dissipation of the dividend, the court was not satisfied that preserving the $200,000 was necessary. This was based on the considerable value of the husband's shareholdings in businesses with substantial turnovers and retained earnings, suggesting that any adjustment could be made at a final hearing if the husband were permitted to use the remaining funds. Furthermore, the court noted that the wife was unwilling to provide an undertaking as to damages, which, in the context of an asset-based dispute, weighed against granting the injunction.

Consequently, the court dismissed the wife's application for the injunction concerning the $200,000 dividend. The court made consent orders as agreed by the parties, which included provisions for document access, legal professional privilege claims, and the husband's restraint from dealing with certain shareholdings. The court also ordered that the wife's Application in a Case filed on 4 February 2021 be dismissed.