H and Parsons & Ors

In the Family Court of Australia, Loughnan J considered an application by an applicant who was the beneficiary of a judgment debt. The applicant sought a Mareva injunction against the respondent wife, restraining her from dealing with her interest in three properties. The substantive proceedings had been delayed indefinitely due to the husband's inability to prosecute them. The court found there was a legitimate basis for the applicant's claim for relief under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1995* (Cth) in the context of the parties' property settlement proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an interim injunction to restrain the respondent wife from dealing with her assets. This involved considering the applicant's entitlement to seek such relief, particularly given the indefinite delay in the substantive proceedings and the nature of the applicant's interest as a judgment creditor. The court also had to determine the scope of any such injunction, including whether it should apply to all properties or be limited in some way.

Loughnan J reasoned that the applicant had established a sufficient basis for seeking injunctive relief to preserve assets that might be available to satisfy the judgment debt. The court applied the principles governing Mareva injunctions, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a good arguable case and a real risk that assets would be dissipated. The court granted the application for an injunction until further order, restraining the wife from dealing with her interest in two specified properties and shares in a company, as well as restraining the company from dealing with a third property. However, the injunction was not extended to the property in which the respondent wife currently resided.

The court ordered that the injunctions be in place until further order, subject to the applicant's solicitor giving the usual undertaking as to damages. The application was adjourned generally, with liberty to restore it to the list on 14 days' notice, and any restoration by the applicant was to be accompanied by an amended application detailing any proposed changes to the relief sought. The costs of the proceedings were reserved.