Garrey and Crosby (No.2)

[2007] FamCA 1100

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GARREY & CROSBY (NO. 2) [2007] FamCA 1100

FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judicial Registrar - Review of decision

APPLICANT: Ms Garrey

RESPONDENT: Mr Crosby

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2844 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 31 August 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT OF: Steele J

HEARING DATE: 31 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. M. Twigg

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr P. Campton

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pearson Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That the wife’s application for interim injunctions be dismissed.

2. That the parties have leave to obtain a date for a one day hearing of the Review Application filed 28 August 2007.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Garrey & Crosby is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2844  of 2007

Ms Garrey

Applicant

And

Mr Crosby

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes before me today as a review of orders made by Johnston JR on 24 August 2007.  The material in support of and to contradict the application is voluminous indeed and involves complex financial issues relating to many different assets.  The time taken to read the material is more than the time that is available to hear the case and accordingly the parties’ agree that it is necessary to vacate the hearing fixed for today, which I propose to do. 

1. I am asked in the interim to make some injunctions which would in the contention of the wife’s counsel, preserve the status quo, pending the hearing of the Review.  Counsel for the husband says in effect, that what counsel for the wife is doing is seeking to have made the orders which he sought in the original application by way of an interim injunction. 

1. There is a lot of material that has been put forward and for every argument there seems to be a counter argument.  However, it does seem to me that there is an element of severe restriction in the husband’s affairs if the injunctions which the wife’s counsel seeks were to be granted.

1. I am not satisfied that there is real risk that the wife’s potential interest in the pool of assets, the subject of litigation, will be put at risk in the time between now and the date fixed for the hearing of the Review Application. 

1. In my view, the husband’s capacity to conduct his business affairs, should not in the circumstances be constrained by injunction.  The husband is already the subject of an injunction charging him against the further encumbering of his home which has a value of $1.3 million. 

1. In all those circumstances I dismiss the application of interim injunctions pending the further hearing of the matter and I grant leave to the parties to obtain a date for a one day hearing of the Review Application filed 28 August 2007.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Steele

Associate

Date:  3 September 2007