Keir & Ramsay

In the matter of *Keir & Ramsay*, Ms Keir (the applicant) sought orders against Mr Ramsay (the respondent) concerning the production and distribution of erotic images of the applicant, and also sought interim financial relief. The application involved both injunctive relief to restrain the respondent's actions and financial orders, including a partial property settlement or lump sum maintenance and interim costs.

The court was required to determine whether to grant an injunction restraining the respondent from further producing, distributing, or disseminating any material containing images or audio of the applicant, and to order the respondent to provide disclosure of entities involved in distribution, agreements, and financial receipts related to the material. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicant's claim for interim financial relief, specifically a $100,000 partial property settlement, and alternatively, relief of $100,000 on account of lump sum maintenance and interim costs, assessing whether the applicant had a real prospect of obtaining justice without such an order.

Rees J granted extensive injunctive relief, restraining the respondent from producing, editing, publishing, releasing, distributing, or disseminating any material containing images or audio of the applicant, and from providing links to such material. The court also ordered the respondent to remove any submitted images from competitions or events and to provide detailed disclosure regarding entities involved in production and distribution, agreements, financial receipts, and all original footage and copies. Regarding financial relief, the court refused the application for a $100,000 partial property settlement, finding it could not be confidently predicted that any such payment could be adjusted in the substantive determination. However, the court ordered the respondent to pay $50,000 to the applicant from funds held in trust from a property sale, pursuant to s 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), to "level the playing field" and ensure the applicant had a real prospect of obtaining justice. The court also directed parties to file submissions regarding costs.