STEELE & STEELE

In *Steele & Steele*, Aldridge J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by the wife seeking to restrain the husband from dealing with a property located at F Street, Town G, New South Wales. The dispute concerned the potential dissipation of assets pending final resolution of financial proceedings between the parties.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an interlocutory injunction to preserve the F Street property. This involved assessing whether the wife had established a sufficient likelihood of success in her claim for property settlement and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction to prevent irreparable harm to her potential entitlement.

Aldridge J reasoned that the wife had demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding her claim to a share in the F Street property. The court considered the potential for the husband to deal with the property in a manner that would prejudice the wife's claim, particularly by increasing the mortgage indebtedness beyond a specified limit. The judge applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, requiring the applicant to show a strong prima facie case or a serious question to be tried, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The court also required the wife to provide an undertaking as to damages as a condition for the injunction.

The court ordered that the husband be restrained from selling, transferring, or otherwise dealing with the F Street property, or varying, refinancing, or increasing the mortgage facility beyond $350,000, without the wife's prior written consent. This order was conditional upon the wife filing a written undertaking as to damages within 48 hours. The matter was stood over for directions, and leave was granted to the parties to apply for costs within 28 days.