Liatos & Liatos and Anor

In the case of Liatos & Liatos and Anor, the applicant wife sought leave to appeal against the decision of the trial judge who had discharged an interlocutory injunction which restrained the husband from leaving Australia. The dispute involved property proceedings and allegations of undisclosed overseas assets, forgery of documents, and concerns about the husband's potential flight from the jurisdiction if faced with criminal proceedings. The wife argued that the trial judge had failed to rule on the admissibility of an expert forensic document examiner’s report, had not applied the correct test in considering the balance of convenience, and that his reasons were inadequate.

The court examined the wife's claims of error, particularly regarding the trial judge's handling of the forensic document examiner’s report. The wife contended that the trial judge failed to address the admissibility of the report, despite the husband's objections. However, the court found that the wife's senior counsel had not pursued the admissibility of the report after the initial submissions, and had instead focused on the admissibility of the business records annexed to the report. The court concluded that the trial judge's reasons were adequate, and that no error of principle or substantial injustice had been demonstrated.

The court also considered the wife's application to amend the proposed grounds of appeal, which was filed at the last minute. The wife sought to include a ground alleging a denial of natural justice. The court allowed the amendment, noting that no prejudice was caused to the husband. Additionally, the wife's application to adduce further evidence was refused, as the material sought was contentious and had already been before the trial judge. Lastly, the wife, being wholly unsuccessful in her application, was ordered to pay the husband's costs of the application, though this order was stayed pending the determination of the property proceedings.