LEE & RIM

[2015] FamCA 702

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEE & RIM [2015] FamCA 702

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournments- interim orders made adjourning the proceedings to allow a proposed third party to seek legal advice

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Application for continuation of injunction previously granted restraining the husband by injunction from closing down, transferring or selling his interests in the business as well as from selling, disposing or transferring his shares in the business – where the husband does not oppose the continuation of the injunction –  interim orders restraining the husband by injunction

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Lee

RESPONDENT: Mr Rim

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11067 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 3 August 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Johns J

HEARING DATE: 3 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Moisidis

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Herbert

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That until further order the husband be restrained by injunction from exercising his rights and powers as a director of B Pty Ltd to do any acts or things to close down, transfer or sell the business known as C Pty Ltd without the written consent of the wife or order of this Court.

2. That until further order the husband be restrained by injunction from selling, disposing or transferring his shares in B Pty Ltd without the written consent of the wife or order of this Court.

3. That the wife’s Application in a Case filed 1 July 2015 be dismissed.

4. That the wife’s Application in a Case filed 4 June 2015 be adjourned for hearing on 21 August 2015 at 9.30am

5. That the husband file and serve any affidavits upon which he seeks to rely in response to the wife’s Application in a Case by 4.00pm on 11 August 2015.

6. That the costs of the husband and the wife from this day be reserved.

AND THE COURT NOTES

That the husband did not oppose orders 1 and 2 hereof.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lee & Rim has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11067 of 2013

Ms Lee

Applicant

And

Mr Rim

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes before me having been adjourned to this date from a Judicial Duty List on 5 June 2015.  The wife had filed an Application in a Case on 4 June 2015 in which she sought to join as a party to the proceedings an entity known as D Pty Ltd.  That application is supported by an affidavit filed 4 June 2015. 

2. On 1 July 2015, the wife filed a Further Application in a Case in which she sought injunctions against the husband seeking to restrain him from dealing with the party’s business known as C Pty Ltd and from dealing with the entity known as B Pty Ltd.  That application came before Macmillan J in a Judicial Duty List on 7 July 2015.  That day, her Honour made orders, on an interim basis restraining the husband from dealing with those entities until such time as the matter could be listed before me, it being my responsibility to manage this matter as it is in my docket.

3. Today, the husband is represented.  I am informed by counsel appearing on behalf of the husband that the husband, whilst he does not consent to the orders sought, does not oppose the continuation of the injunctions that were made by Macmillan J on 7 July 2015.  I am satisfied, having read the material, that it is appropriate that there be a continuation of those injunctions.  That view is bolstered in circumstances where, clearly, the husband does not oppose the continuation of those orders. 

4. As to the issue of joinder, today the sole director and shareholder of D Pty Ltd, Ms E, who is the husband’s mother, appears in person.  I am informed by her that she has only recently sought some advice in relation to the application for joinder.  Today, Ms E has sought an adjournment of the application to enable her to arrange representation.  The application for adjournment is not opposed by the other parties.  In circumstances where she has not been served with the Amended Initiating Application in which the final relief sought by the wife is set out, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that Ms E have the opportunity to obtain legal advice so that she can consider her position as to the issue of joinder.

5. This matter is listed before me for mention on 21 August 2015.  What I propose to do is to adjourn the application for joinder to that date, and, if necessary, I will hear submissions in relation to that issue on that date. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns delivered on 3 August 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  3 August 2015