Gairola and Lakmali & Ors

In the matter of *Gairola and Lakmali & Ors*, heard before Macmillan J, the proceedings concerned an application for intervention by B Lawyers, the husband's former solicitors, who held an outstanding judgment debt for unpaid legal fees. The dispute involved the husband and wife and the potential impact of their financial settlement on the legal costs owed to the second and third named respondents.

The court was required to determine whether B Lawyers should be permitted to intervene in the proceedings as the third named respondent and whether an injunction should be granted to restrain the husband and wife from dealing with funds in a joint bank account. A further issue was the proper method of service for court documents on the husband.

Macmillan J granted B Lawyers leave to intervene as the third named respondent pursuant to section 79(10) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also ordered that service of the application and notice of intervention on the husband be deemed effective if delivered by prepaid post or email to his known address and email. An injunction was granted restraining the husband and wife from transferring, disposing of, encumbering, or otherwise dealing with $145,000 in their joint NAB account without the written agreement of the second named respondent, Ms Falk, and the third named respondent, B Lawyers, or further order of the court. This injunction was intended to protect the status quo, acknowledging that the funds were sufficient to cover outstanding judgment debts and potential costs, and to preserve the possibility of the parties reaching an agreement that might otherwise leave these costs unpaid. The court also made directions regarding the filing of financial affidavits, amended applications, and further affidavits by the husband and wife, with liberty to the second and third respondents to apply to have their applications heard undefended in default of compliance.