Klearchos and Klearchos and Ors

The proceedings involved the wife, seeking final orders, and H Ltd, which had filed an application for summary dismissal of the wife's application against it. The court was Loughnan J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to dismiss H Ltd's application for summary dismissal of the wife's application for final orders. The court was also required to consider variations to interlocutory orders previously made, in light of an undertaking provided by the wife.

Loughnan J's reasoning focused on the principles governing the grant of injunctions, particularly in the context of preventing the disposal of assets to defeat a court order. The court emphasised that the essential power being exercised is to grant an injunction where it is "just or convenient to do so" under section 114(3) of the relevant Act. The court clarified that establishing a risk or danger of property disposal intended to defeat an order is distinct from proving, as an independent issue, the existence of a scheme to defeat an order. While evidence of an intention or scheme can be a factor in establishing the probability of an objective risk of disposal, it is not the sole determinant. The court noted that the requirement for an injunction is that it be just and convenient, and that such an order should not be granted lightly, requiring close scrutiny of the evidence and imposing the minimum necessary restrictions.

The court dismissed H Ltd's response to the application, which included its application for summary dismissal. Interlocutory orders were varied to reflect the undertaking of the wife, and parties were given liberty to address the court regarding the wording of the final orders.