Ming and Dao (No 2)

In *Ming and Dao (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for injunctive orders concerning the proceeds of sale of a property he owned with the wife. The husband also sought expedition of the final hearing. The wife sought orders for the net sale proceeds to be divided 30 per cent to the husband and 70 per cent to her. The matter involved complex business structures, ongoing valuations, and a tax audit, with significant disagreement between the parties regarding asset values and disclosure.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the husband had established a sufficient legal basis to warrant injunctive relief to restrain the wife from accessing her agreed share of the sale proceeds, and whether the case warranted expedition. The husband contended that the wife's alleged persistent failure to disclose and obstruction of the valuation process created a risk that her share of the proceeds would be dissipated, frustrating his claim. The wife argued that ample assets remained for distribution, and payment of her share would not hinder the husband's substantive claim.

Justice Altobelli applied the principles established in *Waugh & Waugh* and other relevant authorities, which require more than mere apprehension or concern to justify injunctive relief. The Court found that the husband had not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a danger of dissipation or a risk that his claim could not be satisfied. Consequently, the husband's application for injunctions was dismissed. The Court also declined to grant expedition, noting the case was not unusual, valuations were incomplete, the tax audit was ongoing, and the businesses involved were susceptible to the economic impact of COVID-19, suggesting that a delay might even be beneficial for asset valuation. The matter was referred back to the Listing Coordinator for further case management, with no order as to costs.