Lake and Brand (No 2)

In the matter of *Lake and Brand (No 2)*, Macmillan J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the wife concerning a property and shares held by the husband. The wife sought orders for the husband to remove a caveat he had lodged over a property, which he had failed to do despite previous final orders requiring him to do so. The husband had subsequently lodged a new caveat over the same property, seeking to re-litigate issues already determined in the final hearing. The wife also sought to restrain the husband from disposing of his shares in a company, citing an outstanding costs order and a pending further costs application, arguing that such disposal would render any costs orders unenforceable.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interim injunctions to give effect to existing final orders regarding the property and to prevent the husband from dissipating assets that could satisfy future costs orders. Specifically, the court had to consider the husband's continued lodging of caveats over the property despite prior orders and the wife's need for effective means to enforce costs orders against the husband's shareholding.

Macmillan J reasoned that the husband's actions in lodging a new caveat after final orders were made, and his failure to comply with those orders, necessitated intervention to ensure the wife's retention of the property as per the final judgment. The court applied principles relating to the enforcement of court orders and the use of injunctions to prevent vexatious conduct and to preserve assets for the satisfaction of debts. The court found it appropriate to grant interim orders restraining the husband from dealing with his shares to protect the wife's ability to recover costs.

The court made several orders, including granting the wife leave to amend her application to seek an injunction restraining the husband from dealing with his shares in I Pty Ltd while any monies owed to the wife remain unpaid. The husband was ordered to sign a withdrawal of caveat over the E Town property, with a Registrar appointed to sign on his behalf if he failed to do so. The husband was also restrained by injunction from lodging any further caveats or documents affecting the wife's ownership of the E Town property. The wife was directed to file submissions regarding the injunction on the property, with the husband to file a reply, and the application concerning the property was adjourned for judgment.