JAYE & WALES

The applicant wife sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent husband from dealing with the assets of a company they jointly owned, B Pty Ltd, without her consent. She also sought an order compelling the husband to cause the company to advance her $2,400,000 to purchase a property, and for the disclosure of certain documents. The husband opposed the injunction and the property advance order.

The court was required to determine whether to grant an interim injunction restraining the husband's dealings with company assets, whether to order an interim property adjustment by way of a company advance to the wife, and what disclosure orders should be made. The court also considered the wife's request for specific documents and the husband's reciprocal request for disclosure from the wife.

Regarding the interim property adjustment, the court found that the wife already resided in an unencumbered property of similar value and had sought to retain it. The evidence suggested that the requested advance could cause loss to the parties, and no injustice would arise from refusing the interim order. Consequently, this application was dismissed. However, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the husband from dealing with the assets of B Pty Ltd, including his shares and non-core business assets, and from withdrawing funds from company bank accounts, except in the ordinary course of business or for agreed weekly payments. This injunction was made conditional on the husband providing the wife with at least 14 days' written notice of any intended dealings. The court was satisfied that the documents sought by the wife were relevant to the proceedings and necessary for a fair disposal of the issues, ordering their disclosure by the husband. Reciprocal disclosure orders were also made against the wife.