Shamon & Shamon
Case
•
[2021] FamCA 417
•22 June 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Shamon & Shamon [2021] FamCA 417
[2021] FamCA 417
22 June 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Shamon & Shamon*, McClelland DCJ of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife against the husband and two other respondents. The dispute concerned the division of matrimonial property following the parties' separation. The wife sought various orders, including injunctions to restrain the husband from further dealing with identified matrimonial property, litigation funding, and spousal maintenance.
The court was required to determine whether to grant interim injunctive relief to preserve matrimonial assets, considering the wife's contention that the husband had transferred significant property interests since separation and posed a risk of further dissipation. Additionally, the court had to consider the wife's applications for litigation funding and a partial property distribution to cover her anticipated costs up to a conciliation conference, as well as her claim for interim spousal maintenance.
McClelland DCJ applied the principles for granting preservation orders, requiring the applicant to establish an arguable case and a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied due to the other party dealing with their assets. The court found that the evidence demonstrated a live issue regarding the husband's conduct aimed at dissipating assets and a real risk of future dissipation, justifying the wife's requested injunctive relief, with some modifications to previous orders. The court also found it appropriate to order litigation funding for the wife and interim spousal maintenance.
Consequently, the court ordered variations to existing restraints to permit the husband to manage certain property-related expenses through specific companies, while otherwise restraining him from dealing with benefits or assets held by S Pty Ltd without the wife's agreement or court leave. Further restraints were imposed on the husband regarding other properties and trusts. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $80,000 for litigation funding and $772 per week as spousal maintenance.
The court was required to determine whether to grant interim injunctive relief to preserve matrimonial assets, considering the wife's contention that the husband had transferred significant property interests since separation and posed a risk of further dissipation. Additionally, the court had to consider the wife's applications for litigation funding and a partial property distribution to cover her anticipated costs up to a conciliation conference, as well as her claim for interim spousal maintenance.
McClelland DCJ applied the principles for granting preservation orders, requiring the applicant to establish an arguable case and a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied due to the other party dealing with their assets. The court found that the evidence demonstrated a live issue regarding the husband's conduct aimed at dissipating assets and a real risk of future dissipation, justifying the wife's requested injunctive relief, with some modifications to previous orders. The court also found it appropriate to order litigation funding for the wife and interim spousal maintenance.
Consequently, the court ordered variations to existing restraints to permit the husband to manage certain property-related expenses through specific companies, while otherwise restraining him from dealing with benefits or assets held by S Pty Ltd without the wife's agreement or court leave. Further restraints were imposed on the husband regarding other properties and trusts. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $80,000 for litigation funding and $772 per week as spousal maintenance.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Standing
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Shamon & Shamon [2021] FamCA 417
Most Recent Citation
Zha & Wun (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 576
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Galip & Galip (No 5)
[2025] FedCFamC1F 11
Zha & Wun (No 4)
[2023] FedCFamC1F 830
Shamon & Shamon (No 7)
[2023] FedCFamC1F 97
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
3
THORNLEY & THORNLEY
[2018] FamCA 964
Tomasetti v Brailey
[2012] NSWCA 6
Samimi v Seyedabadi; Seyedabadi v Samimi
[2013] NSWCA 279