Finberg v Efron (No 2)

In *Finberg v Efron (No 2)*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a party had breached an undertaking given to the court. The dispute arose from an earlier proceeding where the defendant, Efron, had given an undertaking to the court that he would not take any steps to dissipate or deal with certain assets pending the final determination of the proceedings. The plaintiff, Finberg, alleged that Efron had subsequently breached this undertaking by transferring assets to his wife.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Efron's actions constituted a breach of his undertaking. This required the court to consider the scope and meaning of the undertaking, particularly in relation to the transfer of assets to a spouse, and to assess whether such a transfer fell within the prohibition against dissipating or dealing with the assets. The court also had to determine the appropriate consequences for a breach of a court-given undertaking.

Judge Jones found that Efron had indeed breached his undertaking. The court reasoned that the undertaking was intended to preserve the status quo of the assets and prevent their removal from the jurisdiction or their disposal in a manner that would frustrate any future judgment. The transfer of assets to his wife, even if for ostensibly legitimate reasons, was considered a dealing with those assets that fell within the broad scope of the undertaking. The court emphasised that undertakings given to the court are serious matters and must be strictly adhered to.

Consequently, the court ordered that Efron pay the plaintiff's costs of the application and that the transfer of assets be set aside to the extent necessary to give effect to the original undertaking.