Hancock & Hancock

In the case of Hancock & Hancock, the court was faced with a dispute between a husband and wife regarding property interests and asset preservation orders. The application was made under section 79 of the relevant legislation, seeking to alter property interests. The wife argued for the preservation of assets, while the husband opposed the application, particularly in relation to the encumbrance of D Pty Ltd, a company with which both parties had significant ties.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether D Pty Ltd was a third party for the purposes of the application, whether the balance of convenience favoured the wife, and whether the wife had invoked the power to restrain the encumbering of assets properly. The court also had to consider whether the wife was required to prove the existence of an entitlement to an asset preservation order or if she merely needed to show that she was entitled to an order preserving the status quo.

In its reasoning, the court found that D Pty Ltd was indeed a third party for the purposes of the application, considering its shareholder structure, governance, and the duties owed by its officers. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured the wife, and that she had properly invoked the power to restrain the encumbering of assets. The court also concluded that the wife only needed to prove that she was entitled to an order preserving the status quo, rather than proving an entitlement to an asset preservation order. The court accepted the undertaking as to damages and observed the common interests of the parties in seeing the F Project go ahead.

The final orders of the court were that D Pty Ltd was not to be encumbered in a way that would prejudice the wife's rights and interests. The court also ordered that the undertaking as to damages be met, and that the proceedings be stayed until a later date to allow for further negotiations.