Owen v Owen

In the case of Owen v Owen, the applicant sought a freezing order against the respondent to prevent the dissipation of assets, which might leave the respondent unable to satisfy a judgment debt owed to the applicant in another court proceeding. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the balance of convenience favoured the making of such an order. The central legal issues involved assessing whether there was a risk of the respondent disposing of assets, thereby rendering the judgment debt unsatisfied, and whether the applicant had demonstrated that the balance of convenience favoured the imposition of a freezing order.

The court considered the evidence presented by the applicant regarding the respondent's potential ability and intention to dispose of assets. It was noted that the respondent had previously made similar transactions and had access to significant financial resources. The court also took into account the applicant's risk of irreparable harm if the assets were dissipated. The balance of convenience was found to favour the applicant as there was a credible risk that the respondent could defeat the judgment if the assets were not frozen. The court concluded that the applicant had met the necessary threshold for the grant of an interlocutory freezing order.

As a result, the court made a freezing order in the amount of $110,000 to prevent the respondent from disposing of or dealing with the specified assets. The costs of the application were reserved for determination at a later stage.