MEDLOW & MEDLOW

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Loughnan considered an application by a wife for an urgent Mareva injunction against her husband. The dispute concerned the husband's intention to settle litigation in the New South Wales Supreme Court involving a company associated with him and a company associated with his brother. Previous orders required the husband to provide the wife with at least 14 days' notice before executing documents dealing with property. The wife had received notice of the proposed settlement but argued she had insufficient time to respond and that the husband had not met his disclosure obligations. The husband contended that there was an urgent need for liquid funds to meet his spousal maintenance obligations, outgoing expenses, and legal fees for upcoming criminal proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an interim injunction restraining the husband from finalising the Supreme Court proceedings. This involved considering the wife's claim that she had not been afforded adequate time to respond to the proposed settlement and that disclosure obligations had not been met, against the husband's assertion of urgency for funds. The court also had to assess the adequacy of the wife's undertaking as to damages in light of the potential impact of the injunction.

Justice Loughnan applied the principles governing the grant of interim injunctions in family law proceedings, particularly under section 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court found that the wife had not had adequate time to respond to the husband's proposed settlement and that there was a risk that the husband might take steps to finalise the litigation without proper consideration of the wife's position. Consequently, the court determined that an injunction was warranted to preserve the status quo and allow the wife sufficient time to consider the proposed settlement and potentially make further applications. The injunction was granted on the basis of the wife's undertaking as to damages.

The court ordered that an injunction be in place until 6.00 pm on 28 March 2014, restraining the husband from signing any documents or causing any documents to be signed on his behalf which would finally determine the proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court, without the prior written consent of the wife. The proceedings were adjourned to 28 March 2014, with leave granted for parties to approach the Associate to Justice Loughnan regarding any agreement to change the date and for parties or their legal representatives to attend by telephone.