Loomis & Anor and Thurston

In the matter of *Loomis & Anor and Thurston*, Forrest J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered applications made by Mr Loomis and L Ltd concerning orders previously made on 5 May 2016. The applications sought to discharge an order restraining the husband from refinancing a loan on a UK property in a way that would increase the debt secured against it, and to stay this order pending the hearing of an appeal. Additionally, applications were made to restrain the wife from contacting tenants of the UK property and to restrain the husband from filing material relating to the wife's mental health.

The court was required to determine whether the order restraining the husband from increasing the debt on the UK property should be discharged or stayed. This was in circumstances where the husband had filed an appeal against the original order, but that appeal had been deemed abandoned due to his failure to file the necessary materials. The court also had to consider whether the wife should be restrained from contacting the tenants of the UK property, given assertions that she was in contempt of court by doing so, and whether the husband should be restrained from filing material concerning the wife's mental health in the proceedings.

Regarding the application to discharge or stay the order concerning the UK property debt, Forrest J found that there was no evidence presented as to the merits of the husband's appeal or the merits of reinstating it. Consequently, this application was dismissed. The application to restrain the wife from contacting tenants was also dismissed, as the original orders did not contain such a restraint and there was insufficient evidence to establish a need for one. However, the application to restrain the husband from filing material about the wife's mental health was granted, with the court finding such assertions to be emotionally abusive in the context of the property proceedings.

The court ordered that the application filed by Mr Loomis and L Ltd on 8 September 2016 be dismissed. Furthermore, Mr Loomis was restrained, until further order, from asserting that Ms Thurston is mentally ill or unwell in any affidavits he might file or seek leave to file, and from exhibiting articles about mental health to support such assertions, pending the conclusion of the proceedings by final judgment.