Winter and Winter and Ors

In *Winter and Winter*, O'Reilly J considered an application by the wife concerning interlocutory relief in proceedings between herself and the husband. The wife sought to set aside a consent property order previously made in their divorce proceedings. The court was asked to determine whether a serious question to be tried existed regarding a miscarriage of justice in the making of that consent order.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife had demonstrated a serious question to be tried that the consent property order was contrary to law and justice, thereby constituting a miscarriage of justice under section 79A(1)(a) of the relevant legislation. This was alleged to have occurred due to the husband's suppression of evidence regarding his beneficial ownership of a yacht, his beneficial interest in a company (ACAPL) which owned property, and his beneficial ownership of two motor vehicles. Additionally, the wife alleged the husband had given false evidence in the original proceedings.

O'Reilly J reasoned that the wife needed to show a serious question to be tried on at least one ground. The court found that the evidence presented, including affidavits from two individuals (Mr GR and Mr MW) who had dealings with the husband, provided plausible evidence of the husband's intention to conceal assets. These individuals independently swore that the husband had expressed a desire to keep assets out of his wife's reach. The evidence regarding the yacht suggested it was held through companies (ACAPL and ACL) as a disguise to conceal the husband's ownership from the wife. The court was satisfied that the evidence analysed was of the requisite quality to establish a serious question to be tried, having regard to the gravity of the allegations and the standard of proof required under *Briginshaw* and section 140 of the *Evidence Act*.

The court made orders continuing interim ex parte orders in relation to the second respondent, who had not been served or sought to set aside those orders, until further order. The applicant undertook to indemnify the respondents for any loss or damage resulting from these orders. The costs of the wife's application for interlocutory relief were reserved.