Marello and Marello (No. 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Marello (the husband) for an injunction against Ms Marello (the wife). The dispute arose after a final property settlement judgment had been delivered. The husband sought an injunction that would effectively give him a veto over the wife's purchase of a new property, arguing it was necessary to secure potential costs orders against her. However, no costs order had yet been made, and the husband had no current entitlement to any funds the injunction would protect.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the husband's application for an injunction. Specifically, the court had to consider if the injunction sought was appropriate in circumstances where a final property settlement had been determined, and the proposed injunction could impact third-party interests, including the wife's new partner and potentially a financial institution, none of whom were parties to the application. The court also had to assess the balance of convenience and the interests of justice in relation to the application.

In dismissing the application, the court applied established principles regarding interlocutory injunctions, particularly the concept of Mareva relief. The court noted that such injunctions are not intended to provide security for a judgment that may be obtained or to improve a party's position against other creditors. The court found that the husband had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the injunction, as there was no current entitlement to any amount to be protected, and the wife's property transaction was anticipated and accounted for in the final property judgment. Furthermore, the injunction sought would grant the husband a veto over the wife's purchase, impacting third parties and the children's living arrangements, and the balance of convenience and the interests of justice favoured refusing the injunction.