PUNG & DINH

The applicant, Ms. Pung, a de facto wife, sought various interim orders against the respondent, Mr. Dinh, her de facto husband. These included an injunction restraining Mr. Dinh from dealing with a real property solely in his name and his Australian financial investments, as well as orders for spousal and child maintenance, and exclusive use of certain property. Mr. Dinh opposed the injunction but offered an undertaking, and was unable to demonstrate any real prejudice if an injunction were granted instead. The court was required to determine whether to grant the injunction sought by the applicant and to make interim orders regarding property, maintenance, and parenting arrangements.

Forrest J made orders by consent in relation to the parenting of the children, including that the children live with the applicant mother and spend time with the respondent father under specific conditions, and that the children be restrained from leaving Australia. The court also made consent orders for interim spousal and child maintenance, with the respondent ordered to pay $600 per week in spousal maintenance and $400 per week in child maintenance, along with private health insurance premiums and education expenses for the children. The respondent's interest in a motorcycle was charged as security for the spousal maintenance payments.

Crucially, the court granted the injunction sought by the applicant, restraining the respondent from selling, transferring, mortgaging, encumbering, or otherwise dealing with the specified real property and his financial investments in Australia until further order. These financial investments were broadly defined to include managed funds, real property, bank accounts, and other assets held by the respondent or by entities in which he has a beneficial interest or is a director, including investments made in connection with his Business Skills visa. The respondent was also restrained from operating on his bank accounts except for a limited amount for personal expenses and maintenance payments, with a requirement to provide substantiating documentation for any further withdrawals. The interests of the children were ordered to be independently represented by a lawyer. The matter was adjourned for further hearing on interim issues including sole occupancy and spousal and child maintenance.