PETERSON & PETERSON

In the matter of *Peterson & Peterson*, Johns J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for interim orders. The dispute concerned the preservation of assets and the protection of the wife from the husband's conduct pending the final determination of proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interim injunctions restraining the husband from disposing of or encumbering property and from harassing the wife. Additionally, the court considered the extent of financial disclosure to be ordered from the husband, including specific categories of documents relating to his income, assets, and financial dealings.

Johns J applied the principles governing the grant of interim injunctions, which require the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. The court also considered its powers under section 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to make orders for the preservation of property and the protection of parties. The court ordered that the husband be restrained by injunction from disposing of, transferring, selling, or otherwise encumbering property, corporate entities, shares, and monetary funds, save for reasonable living expenses. The husband was also restrained from harassing, menacing, assaulting, or intimidating the wife. Furthermore, the court ordered the husband to provide full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances within 21 days, specifying a comprehensive list of documents to be provided.

The wife's Initiating Application was adjourned to the Judicial Duty List, with liberty to apply to proceed on an undefended basis if the husband failed to appear. The wife's costs of the day were reserved.