Saffin & Saffin (No. 2)

In the matter of *Saffin & Saffin (No. 2)*, Gill J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Wife seeking to restrain the Husband from dissipating certain funds held by his solicitors. The dispute arose from concerns that these funds, totalling $150,000 and held in separate accounts with E Lawyers and Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson, were at risk of being used to meet legal costs in other litigation, thereby potentially diminishing the asset pool available for property settlement. The Wife sought an order restraining both parties from accessing these funds, save for a limited amount for legal costs.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether a Mareva injunction, or a similar form of restraint, was warranted to preserve the funds pending the delivery of judgment in the property proceedings. This involved assessing the risk of dissipation of assets by the Husband and the potential prejudice to the Wife if the funds were dissipated before a final property settlement could be ordered.

Gill J reasoned that the circumstances presented a sufficient risk of dissipation to justify the imposition of a restraint. The Court applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, particularly the need to preserve assets where there is a real risk that a party may dissipate them to frustrate a future judgment. The Court found that the funds held by the Husband's solicitors, though not directly accessible to the Wife, formed part of the marital asset pool and their potential dissipation would significantly impact the final property division.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the Husband be restrained from dissipating the sums of $90,000 held in the E Lawyers account and $60,000 held in the Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson account pending judgment in the proceedings. The parties' costs of the application were reserved.