Vail and Vail (No 2)

In *Vail and Vail (No 2)*, Altobelli J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Husband to discharge interim injunctions previously made on 9 September 2020. The dispute centred on the validity of these interim orders, particularly in light of the absence of an undertaking as to damages at the time they were granted, and the existence of a separate contempt application.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the failure to provide an undertaking as to damages when the interim orders were made constituted grounds for their discharge, and whether the Court should hear the contempt application before determining the applications to discharge the interim orders.

Altobelli J reasoned that the absence of an undertaking as to damages at the time of the original orders did not automatically necessitate their discharge, especially when such an undertaking could be provided retrospectively. The Court determined that it was appropriate to grant the Applicant leave to file an undertaking as to damages *nunc pro tunc*, meaning it would have effect from the date the original injunctive orders were made. This approach addressed the legal deficiency without invalidating the prior orders. The Court also indicated that the contempt application would be heard in due course.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the Husband's application to discharge the interim orders made on 9 September 2020. The Court further granted the Applicant leave to file the undertaking as to damages, to be effective retrospectively from the date of the original injunctive orders.