Kendall and Kendall

The Family Court of Australia heard an urgent application by Ms Kendall (the wife) against Mr Kendall (the husband) concerning the preservation of property. The application was filed the day before the hearing and brought on by video link from Adelaide to Melbourne. Both parties acknowledged the approximate asset position, providing the court with a reasonable understanding of their financial circumstances.

The wife sought injunctive relief to prevent the husband from dealing with his entitlements in a superannuation fund, citing his intention to access these funds upon turning 60. She also sought injunctions preventing the husband from accessing any annual leave entitlements. The core legal issues were whether the court had the power to grant such injunctions under section 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and, if so, whether the evidence presented justified the exercise of that discretion.

Justice Cronin considered the principles governing injunctions under section 114, referencing the Full Court's decision in *Mullen & De Bry* [2006] FamCA 1380. While acknowledging the broad nature of the statutory power compared to common law Mareva injunctions, the court noted that an applicant must still demonstrate an arguable case and, by real evidence, a risk that a judgment would remain unsatisfied due to dissipation or concealment of assets. The court found the evidence presented by the wife to be scant. It concluded that even if the husband accessed his superannuation entitlements, there were ample other assets available to satisfy any future judgment in the wife's favour, thus mitigating any real risk of her entitlement being thwarted. Furthermore, the court found no evidence to justify an injunction regarding annual leave, and expressed doubt about the court's power to grant such an order under section 114 in these circumstances.

Consequently, the wife's application was dismissed. The husband's costs of the day were reserved, and reasons for the judgment were ordered to be transcribed.