Rahman and Rahman (No 2)

In *Rahman and Rahman (No 2)*, Stevenson J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife seeking interlocutory relief. The dispute concerned the husband's alleged dissipation of marital assets, specifically funds held in two Commonwealth Bank accounts. The wife sought to restrain the husband from dealing with these funds pending the final determination of the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before Stevenson J was whether the wife had established a sufficient case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the husband from disposing of, transferring, or withdrawing monies from the specified bank accounts. This involved assessing the likelihood of the wife ultimately succeeding in her claim for a property settlement and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of such an injunction.

Stevenson J granted the injunction, finding that the wife had demonstrated a strong prima facie case that the husband had dissipated marital assets. The court applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, requiring the applicant to show a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the preservation of the status quo. The judge was satisfied that the husband's actions posed a real risk of prejudice to the wife's claim, and that the injunction was necessary to prevent further dissipation of assets. The proceedings were adjourned pending the outcome of the husband's appeal against earlier orders made by Rees J.