Sasmita and Sasmita

In the matter of *Sasmita and Sasmita*, the applicant wife sought and obtained interim orders from Johns J restraining the respondent husband from increasing borrowings or further encumbering a property located at D Street, Suburb E, Queensland. These orders were granted upon the wife providing an undertaking to pay any damages the husband might suffer as a result of them. The wife's Initiating Application, filed on 30 November 2018, was adjourned for a hearing on 19 December 2018.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo concerning the matrimonial property pending the final determination of the wife's application. This involved considering the wife's need for protection against potential dissipation or further encumbrance of the property by the husband, and the potential prejudice to the husband if such an injunction were granted.

Johns J applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, which typically require the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. The court considered the wife's undertaking as security against potential loss to the husband. The orders made reflect the court's assessment that, at that stage, it was appropriate to impose a temporary restraint on the husband's dealings with the property to safeguard the wife's interests pending further argument.

The court ordered that the husband be restrained from drawing down upon or increasing borrowings secured against the specified property, or further encumbering it, until 4.00 pm on 19 December 2018. The wife's Initiating Application was adjourned to that date, and the court directed the wife to serve sealed copies of her application, affidavit, financial statement, and the interim orders on the husband and his lawyers.