King and King (No 2)

In the matter of *King and King (No 2)*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife. The dispute involved restraining orders sought against the husband and a third party, RY, to prevent them from leaving Australia. The wife also sought leave to proceed in the absence of formal service on the husband and RY, and to join RY as a party to the proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the wife leave to proceed without service, whether to issue the restraining orders against the husband and RY, and whether to permit the joinder of RY as a party to the proceedings. The court also had to determine the appropriate method of service for the originating documents and the court's orders.

Cronin J reasoned that the wife had established a sufficient case to justify the granting of leave to proceed in the absence of service, given the urgency and the risk of the husband and RY departing Australia. The court applied principles relating to the court's power to issue restraining orders to prevent the dissipation of assets or the removal of parties from the jurisdiction, particularly in the context of family law proceedings. The court also considered the rules regarding the joinder of parties and the requirements for effective service of court documents.

The court ordered that the wife have leave to proceed in the absence of service upon the husband and RY. It further ordered that the husband and RY be restrained from leaving Australia until further order, with the Australian Federal Police requested to assist in the enforcement of this order. The wife was granted leave to file an amended application joining RY as a party, and directions were given for the service of various documents upon the husband and RY, as well as upon the Australian Federal Police. The application was adjourned, and the costs of the wife for the day were reserved.