WENTWORTH v WENTWORTH (Executor of Estate of the late G N Wentworth) SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY JA 24 July 1992 [1992] NSWCA 269 Mahoney JA. There is before the court an application by the plaintiff, Kate Wentworth, to restrain — and I put the matter generally and without being precise — the respondent, Peter Fitzwilliam Neville Wentworth, from dealing with assets of the estate of the father of each of them upon the basis that the plaintiff, Katherine Wentworth, has pending a claim for provision out of the estate under the Family Provision Act. The matter has been dealt with by a judge, and by this Court, and an application for leave to appeal is pending in the High Court of Australia. I believe that application is to be dealt with, subject to the court's business, on 3 August 1992. Miss Wentworth has applied to the court, as I have indicated — again I put the matter generally — to restrain the disposition of those properties pending the final determination of the Family Provision matters in order that — as she claims — her rights under that Act may not be defeated. There is in existence an injunction and/or an arrangement directed to preserving the status quo in relation to thesematters. There is an application — I mention parenthetically — before the court charging contempt against Mr Wentworth in relation to dealings, or suggested dealings, with the property contrary to the existing injunction or arrangements. That matter was to be dealt with today. Unfortunately, by reason of two of the judges involved in the matter not being available, it cannot be dealt with and it will be otherwise disposed of. However, application has been made to the court on motion — admittedly filed on 20 July 1992 — to amend the injunction or arrangement to which I have referred. The amendment involves the addition to the schedule to the order of the court of the properties in question, or some of them, of two pieces of property. The reference to them is referred to in the Notice of Motion. The folio identifiers are 4-718101 and 2-718101. They are said to comprise areas of.0994 hectares and 184.9 hectares. I detail these references so they may appear conveniently on the transcript. Miss O'Hare, who appeared for the respondent on this motion, does not oppose the making of orders whereby those properties can be, in accordance with the terms of the notice of motion, added to the schedule to the orders referred to, that is, to the property the subject of the injunction or arrangements. In these circumstances it is appropriate that the orders be made. The court will make an order, in terms of paragraph 1| of the notice of motion filed on 20 July 1992 for this purpose. It will reserve the costs of the application, thosecosts to be dealt with upon the final determination of the main application which Miss Wentworth has for restraint of the dealing with the properties to which I have already referred. The costs can be dealt with in due course. The order I make, as I have indicated, is in paragraph | of the notice of motion of 20 July 1992 and costs are reserved, as I have indicated. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Miss O'Hare has pointed to the fact that, as Miss Wentworth has previously given an undertaking as to damages in relation to the injunction or arrangement to which I have referred, it is proper that undertaking be extended to include these two properties, and Miss Wentworth has, before the court, given that undertaking. Orders accordingly.