Background
In November 2009, Mrs Ranee Wijeyekoon and her husband borrowed funds from Westpac Banking Corporation and mortgaged a property in Harrison, Australian Capital Territory as security. On 10 March 2023, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) made final orders concerning property disputes between the spouses, with the orders providing for sale of the property (appointed Mr Wijeyekoon as trustee for sale) and requiring proceeds to be disbursed with priority given to discharging the mortgage.
In June 2026, Mrs Wijeyekoon learned that the property had sold in April 2026 and completion was scheduled for 7 July 2026. On 6 July 2026, Mrs Wijeyekoon’s daughter, Ms Amanthi Haslum, acting as litigation guardian, brought an urgent ex parte application in the Federal Court seeking an injunction to prevent Westpac and St. George Bank from discharging the loan as part of the property settlement. Ms Haslum made allegations of criminal activity, financial abuse, and fraudulent conduct by the bank and others, though these remained largely unsubstantiated.
The applicant sought to maintain the status quo to allow the Australian Financial Complaints Authority time to investigate the alleged misconduct. Notably, no application had been made to the Family Court despite that Court having made the original sale order and remaining seized of related proceedings concerning a caveat over the property.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Goodman dismissed the application, applying the three-part test established in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill. First, the Court found no serious issue to be tried. The allegations were cast at such a level of generality that no clear cause of action emerged. While there might theoretically be grounds for unconscionable conduct or misleading or deceptive conduct claims, the strength of such a case was far from apparent.
Second, even assuming a serious issue existed, the injunction was not an appropriate remedy. There was no identifiable remedy that required the property to remain unsold, and any potential cause of action against the bank would not be adversely affected by the sale. Accordingly, damages would be an adequate remedy, weighing against the grant of interlocutory relief.
Third, and most significantly on discretionary grounds, the Court was reluctant to grant an injunction that would have the effect of stymying orders made by the Family Court. The absence of any application to the Family Court—the Court that made the original sale order and currently remained seized of related proceedings—was a powerful discretionary consideration against relief. Justice Goodman emphasized that such interference with another Court’s orders required compelling reasons, which were not present here.
Key Takeaways
- Interlocutory injunctions require clear establishment of a serious issue to be tried; allegations cast at a level of generality without identifiable causes of action do not satisfy this threshold.
- Courts will not grant injunctions to stymie orders of another Court without compelling reasons, particularly when relief could have been sought in the Court that issued the original orders.
- Procedural strategy matters: applicants should pursue injunctive relief in the Court best positioned to grant it, and failure to do so is a significant discretionary factor against granting relief in another forum.
- Non-compliance and lack of engagement in prior proceedings can affect weight given to later applications from the same party or their representatives.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict requirements for obtaining interlocutory injunctions in Australia and reflects important principles of judicial comity and proper procedure. It illustrates that bare assertions of wrongdoing, no matter how serious the allegations, do not suffice to establish a serious question to be tried, and that applicants must properly plead causes of action with sufficient particularity. The case also demonstrates judicial deference to orders of coordinate courts and the requirement that litigants pursue relief through appropriate procedural channels.
For practitioners advising clients in family property disputes, the judgment emphasizes that applications for interim relief must be brought promptly in the Court seized of the primary proceeding, not later in alternative forums. The decision also reflects broader principles that interlocutory injunctions are discretionary remedies granted only in exceptional circumstances where damages are not an adequate alternative.