Grattan and Grattan and Anor (No. 3)

In *Grattan and Grattan and Anor (No. 3)*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife seeking injunctive relief against a solicitor, Mr C, and his firm from acting for the husband and a company in related proceedings. The wife also sought to dismiss the company's application for costs against her.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife had established grounds for an injunction to restrain Mr C and his firm from continuing to act for the husband and the company, given her prior knowledge and apparent acquiescence regarding Mr C's involvement. The court also had to determine the company's application for costs against the wife.

Cronin J dismissed the wife's application for injunctive relief, reasoning that a reasonably informed member of the public would understand that a failure to protest or take steps to restrain a practitioner at or near the time of becoming aware of their involvement is a significant factor. While the wife had concerns about Mr C acting for the husband personally, she had unequivocally indicated no concerns about his role acting for the company, which she described as peripheral. The court found that the wife had not acted expeditiously to restrain Mr C's involvement with the company, and that at this late stage, with a looming timetable, granting such an injunction would likely derail the proceedings. The court also noted the husband's undertaking and the solicitor's assurance of diligence in his role as an officer of the court. The company's application for costs against the wife was adjourned for determination.