Surrey and Surrey

In the matter of *Surrey and Surrey*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife concerning financial matters arising from the marital relationship. The wife sought urgent interlocutory relief, including an injunction to restrain the husband from dealing with funds withdrawn from certain bank accounts.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an interlocutory injunction to preserve marital assets pending further proceedings. This involved assessing the wife's prospects of success in her substantive application and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction.

Cronin J reasoned that the wife had established a sufficient prima facie case to warrant the granting of an injunction. The court applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The judge was satisfied that the husband's actions in withdrawing funds from joint accounts raised concerns about the dissipation of assets, justifying the preservation of those funds.

The court ordered that the wife be granted leave to proceed without notice to the respondent in respect of her application. Furthermore, the husband was restrained by injunction from disposing of, dissipating, or otherwise dealing with funds withdrawn from the specified Westpac bank accounts until further order. The application was adjourned for further hearing, and the wife was ordered to personally serve the husband with the court's orders and originating documents.