Kelby and Kelby (No 2)

In *Kelby and Kelby (No 2)*, the wife sought interim orders for a further partial distribution of the parties' matrimonial property and sought to impose restraints against the parties' company. The matter came before McClelland J.

The court was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the wife's applications for a partial property distribution and for injunctions against the company. Specifically, the court considered whether the wife had addressed the matters set out in section 90AF(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in relation to the company, and whether the orders sought were reasonably necessary. The court also considered the wife's application for the provision of information, and whether any attempt had been made to settle this issue pursuant to Note 1 of Rule 13.22 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth).

McClelland J found that there was insufficient evidence to support the wife's application for a further partial distribution of property. Regarding the restraints sought against the company, the court determined that the wife had failed to address the requirements of section 90AF(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Furthermore, even if the orders were framed as restraints on the husband's dealings with the company, the evidence was insufficient, and the orders sought were considered to go beyond what was reasonably necessary. In relation to the application for the provision of information, the court noted that no attempt had been made to settle the issue as required by the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the wife's Amended Application in a Case filed on 27 March 2017 was dismissed.