RENNIE & RENNIE

In *Rennie & Rennie*, Forrest J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications made by both the husband and wife concerning property adjustment proceedings. The husband sought to discharge previous consent orders, gain sole responsibility for the family business, and prevent legal fees from being paid from business accounts. The wife sought sole ownership of the business, orders compelling the husband to sell personal property and pay funds, and an injunction restraining the husband from selling certain personal property. The wife also sought an order for ongoing disclosure from the husband regarding the sale of livestock, pursuant to Rule 13.04(1)(g) of the *Family Law Rules*.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband should be granted sole responsibility for the family business, whether the previous consent orders should be discharged, and whether the wife was entitled to the various interlocutory orders she sought, including orders for payment of funds, sale of property, and restraint of sale. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether the husband had a duty to provide ongoing disclosure concerning the sale of livestock under the *Family Law Rules*.

Forrest J dismissed all applications made by both parties. The court found that the husband had not established grounds to discharge the existing consent orders or to be granted sole responsibility for the family business. Similarly, the wife's applications for interlocutory relief, including orders for payment, sale, and restraint of sale of personal property, were not substantiated. The application for ongoing disclosure regarding livestock sales was also dismissed, indicating that the court did not find the disclosure to be required under Rule 13.04(1)(g) in the circumstances.

Consequently, all applications contained within the husband’s Amended Application in a Case filed on 11 December 2015 and the wife’s Response to an Application in a Case filed on 7 December 2015 were dismissed.