HADLEY & HADLEY

In *Hadley & Hadley*, the wife sought an ex parte application for interlocutory injunctions against the husband to preserve matrimonial assets. The dispute concerned the potential dissipation of assets by the husband, necessitating urgent court intervention. The matter came before Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to grant injunctions restraining the husband from dealing with specified matrimonial assets, including shareholdings, bank accounts, real property, and superannuation, and whether to restrain the husband from departing the Commonwealth of Australia. The Court also considered the usual undertaking as to damages required for such injunctions and the provision of financial disclosure by the husband.

Bennett J granted the injunctions pursuant to section 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The Court reasoned that the wife had established a sufficient case for the preservation of assets and to prevent the husband from leaving Australia, given the circumstances presented in the ex parte application. The Court ordered that the husband be restrained from transferring, selling, disposing of, or further dealing with specified matrimonial assets without the wife's written consent, and from encumbering property or increasing liabilities without such consent. Additionally, the husband was restrained from departing Australia, with a request for the Australian Federal Police to place his name on the Airport Watch List. The husband was also ordered to provide comprehensive financial disclosure within seven days.

The Court adjourned the matter for further hearing and reserved liberty to the husband to apply to dissolve or vary the injunctions. The applicant was ordered to serve all relevant documents on the husband forthwith, and the husband was ordered to attend Court on the adjourned date. The Court noted that it might proceed to determine the matter without the input of a non-attending or defaulting party.