Masters and Parsons (No 2)

In *Masters and Parsons (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr B and Mr C (the applicants) for an injunction against Mr Masters (the husband) and Ms Parsons (the wife). The dispute arose within ongoing property settlement proceedings between the husband and wife, which had been protracted and had not yet resulted in final orders. The applicants, who had acquired a judgment debt exceeding $214,000 against the husband, sought to intervene in the property proceedings to set aside previous orders and prevent the satisfaction of their debt from the husband's assets.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the husband and wife from mortgaging a property located at D Street, E Town, in favour of F Financial Services. This injunction was sought pending the hearing of the applicants' substantive application to set aside certain property orders. The applicants also sought to abridge the time for service of their application, which had been filed on short notice.

Justice Loughnan granted the injunction on the usual undertaking as to damages by the applicants. The Court reasoned that there was a substantive issue to be determined regarding the applicants' claim that previous orders resulted in a miscarriage of justice, particularly given the husband's apparent lack of assets to satisfy the judgment debt. The Court noted that section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) requires a just and equitable distribution of property, and section 75(2) specifically refers to the interests of creditors. Furthermore, section 114 of the Act empowers the Court to grant injunctions to preserve property. The Court found the applicants' argument to be neither frivolous nor meaningless, justifying the preservation of the property pending further determination.

The Court made orders in terms of paragraph 6 of the applicants' Amended Application in a Case, restraining the husband and wife from mortgaging the D Street property in favour of F Financial Services or entering into a mortgage arranged by that entity as a broker, until further order. These orders were made upon the applicants giving the usual undertaking as to damages.