AITKEN & AITKEN

In *Aitken & Aitken*, heard by Loughnan J, the wife sought to re-open proceedings by filing an affidavit after judgment had been reserved, arguing its materiality to the case. The husband sought exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home, contending it was necessary for the profitable continuation of their jointly run business, which was previously conducted from the home. The wife also sought restoration to the day-to-day running of the business, while the husband sought her removal as a director. Finally, the wife sought spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine whether the wife's application to re-open should be granted, considering the materiality and likely impact of the new evidence. It also had to decide on the competing claims for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home, balancing the parties' interests in the business and their inability to co-operate. Furthermore, the court needed to address the dispute over the management of the family companies and the wife's claim for spousal maintenance.

Regarding the application to re-open, the court found the evidence was not so material as to be required in the interests of justice and unlikely to affect the result, leading to its dismissal. On the issue of exclusive occupation, the court determined that it was not just or convenient to exclude the wife, who was the current resident, and ordered that she have exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home, restraining the husband from attending the property without written agreement. The court noted that the competing applications concerning the family companies had been addressed by prior orders. The wife's claim for spousal maintenance was dismissed as she had access to substantial funds and could not establish an inability to support herself, particularly as the source of proposed maintenance was jointly owned by her. The remaining interim orders sought by both parties were also dismissed.