A Property Battle Paused: Temporary Injunction Keeps Husband Away Amidst Ongoing Dispute

Introduction

The case of Henschel & Sartre (No 6) [2024] highlights the complexities of family law property disputes and the need for injunctive relief to regulate access to shared assets. The decision deals with an application by the wife, Ms. Henschel, seeking to temporarily modify a prior injunctive order that allowed the husband, Mr. Sartre, limited access to a contentious property. The case is a significant example of how courts attempt to balance competing property interests while considering imminent proceedings on final property settlement.

Facts and Issues

Facts

• The wife, Ms. Henschel, filed an urgent application on 9 December 2024, seeking to modify an existing order preventing the husband, Mr. Sartre, from attending a real property (“N Property” in Town O) more than once per calendar month.
• The original order was made by Berman J on 23 February 2023 in an attempt to regulate access and use of the property amid ongoing disputes between the parties (Henschel & Sartre [2023] FedCFamC1F 86).
• The property is owned by a trust, the name of which is in dispute (the wife claims it is the “Mr Sartre and Ms Henschel Family Trust,” whereas the husband claims it is the “Mr Sartre Family Trust”).
• The wife sought to completely restrain the husband from attending the property between 13 December 2024 and 26 January 2025, citing concerns about her personal effects and documents stored there, as well as disputes over livestock care while she was abroad.
• The husband, while contesting many of the wife's claims, agreed to the modification on a "without admissions" basis, likely to avoid prejudicing his position in the upcoming final trial regarding property settlement (set for March 2025).

Legal Issues

1. Should the court grant a temporary variation of the injunction to completely restrain the husband's access to the property?
2. How should the court balance the wife's concerns over personal belongings and the husband's rights to access the disputed property before final determination of property interests?

Rule (Legal Principles Applied)

• Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Governs property settlement and the adjustment of property interests between separating spouses.
• Injunctive Relief in Family Law – Courts have the power to grant and vary injunctive orders to regulate access to disputed property, particularly where there is a history of conflict or where access may impact future proceedings.
• Balancing Interests – Courts must ensure that temporary orders do not unfairly prejudice one party’s rights, particularly in the lead-up to a substantive property trial.

Application (Applying Law to the Facts)

• The court acknowledged the history of disputes between the parties regarding the property, including previous allegations of lock changes, installation of cameras, and removal of keys (Henschel & Sartre [2023] FedCFamC1F 86).
• The wife’s concerns about protecting personal belongings and legal documents while she was overseas were considered valid grounds for seeking the order.
• The husband, while disputing the wife’s claims, agreed to the requested variation. This agreement played a crucial role in the court’s decision, as it removed the need for extensive judicial analysis on whether the variation was necessary.
• The court emphasized that this variation would not affect the broader property dispute set for trial in March 2025.

Analysis of the Judgment and Judicial Reasoning

• Judicial Approach: Justice Campton adopted a pragmatic approach, recognizing that the existing order had not fully resolved conflicts over property access.
• Key Consideration: The husband’s consent to the variation, albeit on a without admissions basis, allowed the court to grant the order without deeper factual findings or adversarial hearings.
• Paragraph 6: The judgment noted that previous attempts to balance property access (Order 7 from February 2023) had not been entirely successful, supporting the need for further modification.
• Paragraph 7-8: The wife’s upcoming travel and her desire to protect her belongings justified the temporary restraining order, while the husband’s strategic agreement ensured the order was made without deeper evidentiary disputes.
• Paragraph 9: The court made clear that the order was temporary and did not prejudice the final property determination, ensuring fairness in the broader proceedings.

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Henschel & Sartre [2023] FedCFamC1F 86 – Prior ruling establishing the original property access restrictions.
• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 – Statutory basis for property settlement and judicial discretion in adjusting property rights.

Take-Home Lesson

This case highlights the importance of injunctive relief in family law disputes, particularly when access to shared property is contentious. It also demonstrates the strategic use of consent orders—the husband’s willingness to agree to the variation without admissions helped avoid extensive litigation while preserving his rights in the upcoming trial. Courts aim to balance competing interests while ensuring that temporary orders do not unfairly impact future property settlement proceedings.