Hinde and Hinde and Anor

The parties to this proceeding before Barry J of the Family Court of Australia were Mrs Hinde (the applicant), Mr Hinde (the first respondent), and Mr Fray (the second respondent). The dispute concerned property settlement, with the applicant alleging that the first respondent had transferred $400,000 to the second respondent, potentially to defeat her claim. The second respondent, who operates a substantial business through various companies, was joined to the proceedings to clarify his financial position and the disposition of these funds.

The court was required to determine whether the second respondent should be subject to court orders to protect the applicant's potential property settlement claim. Specifically, the court needed to assess the credibility of the second respondent's assertions regarding the dissipation of the funds and consider whether the circumstances warranted imposing restraints on his dealings with certain assets and his directorships. The applicant argued that there was arguable collusion between the first and second respondents, necessitating protective measures.

Barry J reasoned that the applicant was entitled to have her case considered at its strongest, and the possibility of collusion between the respondents to defeat the applicant's claim was arguable and not implausible. Given this, the court concluded that it was necessary to impose direct court orders to restrain the second respondent, finding such orders to be more stringent and effective than an undertaking offered by the second respondent's counsel. The court was satisfied that the second respondent was a director and shareholder of the nominated companies and that the applicant was entitled to protection against further dissipation of assets.

The court made several orders, including requiring the first and second respondents to file further financial statements, directing the second respondent to provide detailed particulars of the expenditure of the $400,000 and any payments made to the first respondent, and restraining the second respondent from encumbering or dealing with specific properties held by associated companies. The second respondent was also restrained from taking any steps that would impact his position as a shareholder and director in certain companies. Costs were reserved, and the matter was adjourned for a further hearing.