WELCH & ABNEY

In the Family Court of Australia, Austin J heard an interlocutory application brought by the wife against the husband concerning property settlement. The wife sought orders to restrain the husband from disposing of a parcel of real property and from increasing the debt secured over that property. The dispute arose in circumstances where the entire purchase price of the property in question originated from moneys in which the wife had a direct interest, including funds obtained through a loan secured by a mortgage over the former matrimonial home.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant interlocutory injunctions restraining the husband from dealing with the specified real property and from allowing the debt secured against it to exceed $150,000. Additionally, the court was required to determine the wife's application for costs, given her substantial success in the proceedings and the husband's alleged unreasonable conduct.

Austin J reasoned that the wife had established a sufficient case for the grant of injunctive relief to preserve the asset pending final determination of the property settlement. The court found that the husband's conduct warranted the imposition of restraints to prevent dissipation of the asset or further encumbrance. Regarding costs, the court concluded that the wife was largely successful in her application, having attempted to resolve the matter consensually prior to filing her interim application, and that the husband's conduct had been unreasonable. Consequently, the court ordered that the husband be restrained from selling, mortgaging, or further encumbering the real property, and from increasing the debit balance of the specified home loan beyond $150,000. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife's costs of the interim hearing on a party/party basis.