Hijazi and Hijazi and Ors

In the matter of *Hijazi and Hijazi and Ors*, Cronin J considered applications brought by the wife and the husband, as well as applications by proposed third parties. The dispute concerned interim injunctive orders sought by the wife regarding a property and a motor vehicle, and the husband's response seeking dismissal of the wife's application concerning property and the validity of a financial agreement. The proceedings were initiated following a failed registrar's conference and a compromise before Thornton J, where parties sought no financial orders and all interim applications were dismissed. However, subsequent actions by B Pty Ltd to recover the vehicle and C Pty Ltd to sell the property led to the current proceedings.

The court was required to determine the validity of the wife's claims for interim relief concerning the property and the motor vehicle, and the standing of B Pty Ltd and C Pty Ltd in relation to these assets. Central to the determination was the true ownership and control of B Pty Ltd and C Pty Ltd, particularly in light of the husband's asserted removal from directorship and shareholding in C Pty Ltd, and the presence of "silent partners" in B Pty Ltd. The court also had to consider whether these companies, not being parties to the original financial agreement, could enforce or be subject to orders related to the property.

Cronin J reasoned that the wife's applications for interim orders, which had been dismissed by consent before Thornton J, could not be revived in their original form. The court found that the actions of B Pty Ltd and C Pty Ltd, while potentially related to the underlying marital dispute, were separate legal actions concerning the ownership and disposition of assets. The evidence regarding the husband's control over these companies was found to be unclear, with B Pty Ltd having separate representation and C Pty Ltd having undergone changes in directorship and shareholding. The court concluded that the wife's applications, as presented, were not sustainable.

The applications by the wife, the husband, and the proposed third parties were dismissed. The court certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend and set a timetable for any applications for costs to be made by submission.