MASOUD & MASOUD

In the matter of *Masoud & Masoud*, McClelland J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife to discharge a conditional stay order, which had been made pending the determination of an appeal. The wife also sought orders compelling the husband to remove caveats lodged against nine of her properties, while the husband sought to maintain those caveats pending the appeal and potential re-hearing. The wife required funds to pay for her children's private school fees.

The court was required to determine whether to discharge the conditional stay order, given the husband's alleged breach and the pending appeal. Additionally, the court had to consider the wife's application for the removal of caveats to facilitate her raising funds for school fees, and the husband's opposing application to maintain them. The court also had to assess the risk of dissipation of marital assets by the wife.

McClelland J found that it was inappropriate to disturb the previous award of spousal maintenance and dismissed the wife's application to discharge the stay order, noting that the husband had not had adequate notice of the basis upon which the wife asserted the stayed order was revived. Regarding the property caveats, the court acknowledged the wife's need to raise funds for school fees and the husband's concern about asset dissipation. Applying principles of equity and the discretionary nature of injunctive relief, the court balanced the parties' interests. The court found that while there was a real risk of dissipation of assets by the wife, the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she was deliberately acting to deplete the marital property to defeat a possible court order.

Consequently, the court made orders facilitating the wife's ability to borrow $27,000 by allowing her to nominate a property for security, which might involve withdrawing a caveat. The husband was permitted to re-lodge a caveat on that nominated property after the loan was secured. The wife was restrained from dealing with seven other specified properties unless she provided the husband with at least 28 days' written notice or obtained his written consent, with the husband being obliged not to unreasonably withhold consent and to initiate court proceedings within 14 days if he wished to challenge any proposed dealing. The parties were also ordered to provide updated financial disclosure. The balance of the wife's and husband's applications were dismissed.