Russo and Dorsey

In *Russo & Dorsey*, the Family Court of Australia considered an interim application by Ms Russo (the applicant) against Mr Dorsey (the respondent) concerning property division and maintenance following the end of their de facto relationship. The applicant sought to join Dorsey Nominees Pty Ltd, as trustee for the B & C Dorsey Trust, as a second respondent and to obtain an interim injunction restraining the trustee from enforcing a default judgment it had obtained against the respondent in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was required to determine whether Dorsey Nominees should be joined as a party to the proceedings and whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain the enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment. The applicant's case was that the trust was an alter ego of the respondent and its assets should be considered part of the divisible property pool, or alternatively, that certain dispositions and transactions involving the trust should be set aside under section 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Forrest applied the principles established in *American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd* and subsequent Australian authorities, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an injunction. The court found that there were serious questions to be tried regarding the control of the trust and whether it was the respondent's alter ego, as well as concerning potential applications under section 106B of the *Family Law Act*. The court also considered the balance of convenience, noting the significant risk that enforcement of the default judgment could deplete the respondent's assets, rendering any future property division orders in favour of the applicant worthless. Despite the applicant's impecuniosity and inability to provide an undertaking as to damages, the court found that the balance of convenience strongly favoured preserving the respondent's assets for potential recourse by the applicant.

The court ordered that Dorsey Nominees Pty Ltd be joined as a respondent and granted an interim injunction restraining Dorsey Nominees from taking any steps to enforce the judgment against the respondent, Mr Dorsey, in the Supreme Court proceedings, until further order. The applicant was also ordered to file and serve an amended initiating application naming Dorsey Nominees as the second respondent and particularising the orders sought against both respondents.