Jane and Murray

This matter came before the Family Court of Australia concerning an application by Ms Murray (the respondent) for interlocutory injunctions against Mr Jane (the applicant). The dispute arose from the dissolution of the parties' 12-year de facto relationship and involved substantive property proceedings. Ms Murray sought to restrain Mr Jane from selling, disposing of, parting with possession of, encumbering, mortgaging, or diminishing the value of specific assets, namely a National Australia Bank account, Mr Jane's superannuation benefits, and the former matrimonial home. Mr Jane sought the dismissal of Ms Murray's application for these injunctions.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it ought to exercise its discretion under section 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to grant the injunctions sought by Ms Murray. While the existence of the power to make such orders was not in dispute, the Court was required to determine if the evidence presented justified the exercise of that power. Specifically, the Court had to consider if there was sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate that Mr Jane's actions would likely defeat Ms Murray's prospect of ultimately benefiting from a property settlement.

Justice Cronin found that the evidence provided by Ms Murray in her affidavits was insufficient to warrant the imposition of injunctions. The affidavits contained only limited relevant information, stating that Mr Jane had withdrawn $300,000 from a mortgage account on the former matrimonial home and lent it to a company. The Court held that this evidence did not provide any indication that Mr Jane's actions would likely prejudice Ms Murray's future property entitlements, referencing the principles established in *Waugh* and *Mullen v De Bry*. Consequently, the Court dismissed Ms Murray's application for injunctions.

In relation to costs, the Court ordered Mr Jane to pay Ms Murray's costs fixed at $2800, to be paid out of her entitlement to a property settlement. This decision was based on the sparse evidence presented by Ms Murray in support of her application, an open letter indicating costs would be sought if the matter proceeded, and the Court's assessment that Ms Murray, despite her financial circumstances, was not impecunious and had "chanced her arm and lost." The Court also noted that Mr Jane had already consented to a part-property settlement order in November 2012.