George & George

In the matter of *George & George*, Howard J of the Family Court of Australia considered an interim property application brought by the Second Respondents and an application for summary dismissal by the Sixth Respondent. The dispute involved a property jointly owned by the Applicant (wife), the First Respondent (husband), and the Second Respondents. The Second Respondents sought to transfer the wife's share of the property to themselves, but this property was subject to an injunction from the Supreme Court, requiring the consent of the Applicant in those proceedings for any dealing with it. The Second Respondents claimed to have this consent, but the Court found it was not clear and did not support their application. Furthermore, the most recent valuation of the property was a year old.

The Court was required to determine whether the Second Respondents' interim application to transfer the wife's share of the property should be granted, given the existing Supreme Court injunction and the age of the valuation evidence. Additionally, the Court had to consider the Sixth Respondent's application for summary dismissal of the wife's claim against it. The wife alleged that the husband, despite transferring his interest in the Sixth Respondent company to one of the Second Respondents, continued to manage the company, act as a de facto director, and receive dividends.

Howard J dismissed the Second Respondents' interim application, reasoning that the claimed consent for dealing with the property was not sufficiently clear and did not override the Supreme Court injunction. The Court also noted the outdated valuation evidence as a factor against granting the interim order. Regarding the Sixth Respondent's application, the Court found that the wife had pleaded a reasonable cause of action, raising serious legal questions regarding the husband's continued involvement and benefit from the company. Consequently, the application for summary dismissal was also dismissed.

The Second Respondents were ordered to pay the Applicant wife's costs of and incidental to their dismissed interim application. Similarly, the Sixth Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant wife's costs of and incidental to its dismissed summary dismissal application. All outstanding applications were adjourned for mention before a Registrar.