Bhasin & Bhasin
[2021] FedCFamC1F 25
•9 September 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Bhasin & Bhasin [2021] FedCFamC1F 25
File number(s): MLC 6473 of 2021 Judgment of: WILLIAMS J Date of judgment: 9 September 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim Spousal Maintenance application by the wife where the husband concedes that the wife is unable to adequately support herself and he has the requisite capacity to pay – Assessment of monthly quantum – Application for urgent periodic child maintenance in the absence of a child support assessment – Monthly payment ordered where husband agreed to pay private school fees and some ancillary expenses for the child – Further application by wife for part property settlement seeking the balance of proceeds of sale of a property in circumstances where the husband has considerable cash and shares at his disposal – Held just and equitable to make a further part property settlement in addition to that consented to by the husband on 10 August 2021. Legislation: Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 4, 139
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72(1), 75(2),
Cases cited: Brown & Brown [2007] FamCA 151
In the marriage of Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600
Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) [2009] FamCAFC 166
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 62 Date of hearing: 26 August 2021 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Vohra SC Solicitor for the Applicant: Lander and Rogers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Blackah Solicitor for the Respondent: Macgregor O’Reilly Nash Solicitors ORDERS
MLC 6473 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS BHASIN
Applicant
AND: MR BHASIN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
WILLIAMS J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 SEPTEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:
1.Orders 2–5 of the Orders made on 10 August 2021 be discharged.
2.The $5,000 paid by the husband pursuant to Order 2 of the orders made by consent on 10 August 2021 be characterised as spousal maintenance.
Part property Payment
3.The applicant wife receive a $662,397.50, being the net proceeds of sale of the real property located at B Street, Suburb C (“Suburb C property”) and currently held in the trust account of Lander and Rogers lawyers, by way of interim property settlement.
Spousal maintenance
4.The respondent husband pay or cause to be paid by way of interim spousal maintenance the sum of $8,750 per month to the applicant wife.
5.The respondent husband pay the mortgage payment for the Suburb D property as and when they fall due, directly to the mortgagee, E Bank.
6.The respondent husband pay or cause to be paid a fixed amount of $500 per month to the applicant wife towards the Suburb D property rates and home insurance.
Urgent child maintenance
7.Pursuant to section 139 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), the respondent husband pay or cause to be paid the following:
(a)by way of urgent child maintenance in respect of X born … 2013 (“the child”) the sum of $2,037 per month to the applicant wife;
(b)to F School, all fees in respect of the child upon receiving an invoice and make all necessary arrangements with the school to receive copies of all future invoices in relation to the child;
(c)the child’s school uniforms upon receiving a receipt or tax invoice and reimburse the applicant wife for any such expenses incurred by her from the date of these orders.
8.All extant interim applications are otherwise dismissed.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Orders 1, 5, 6 and 7(b) and (c) are by consent of the parties.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Bhasin & Bhasin has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Williams J
INTRODUCTION
This matter was listed in the Judicial Duty List on 9 August 2020. On that day partial agreement was reached between the parties and the matter was otherwise adjourned to 26 August 2021 for determination of the outstanding dispute between the parties.
The application before the court was the wife’s application for spousal maintenance, child support and a part property payment. The husband did not oppose payment of spousal maintenance to the wife, although there was a dispute about the quantum. The husband opposed the wife’s application for periodic child support, although he consented to orders that he pay the child’s private school fees and reimburse the wife for the child’s school uniforms. The husband also opposed the wife’s application for partial property settlement of $662,379.50, which is the balance of proceeds of sale of a property .The husband proposed that the sum be applied to reduce the mortgage secured against the property in which the wife lives.
BACKGROUND
The wife is aged 44 and the husband is aged almost 36. The wife is engaged in home duties and primary care of the parties’ son aged nearly 8. The wife lives in Australia and also has two daughters from a previous relationship, age 16 and 21, both of whom live in her household. The husband is a sportsman, lives in Country J and travels extensively.
The parties met in 2011 and at that time the wife was working as an educator. She ceased work in late 2011 and travelled to Country J to live with the husband. In 2008, the husband commenced playing professional sport and in 2010 he commenced playing for his country’s team. In 2013, he made his commenced playing internationally. The parties married in 2012 and their son was born in 2013.
In November 2013, the parties jointly purchased a property in Suburb G for $850,000–$900,000. They paid the minimum deposit required and obtained a mortgage for the balance of the purchase price.
In September 2017, they purchased vacant land in Suburb C, in the wife’s name, for $2,470,000, with the intention to build a family home. They paid a deposit of $280,000 and the balance was funded with a mortgage.
In July 2019, they jointly purchased a property in Suburb D, where the wife continues to reside. The property was purchased for $1,150,000. In August 2019, the Suburb G property was sold for $900,000 and the equity was applied to fund the purchase of the Suburb D property, together with a mortgage.
In early 2020, the wife’s motor vehicle was written off in an accident. She received $24,000 from the insurance of the motor vehicle, which she asserts she applied to pay off debts incurred for the support of the household and mortgage payments.
In January 2020, the wife and their son moved to H City to ascertain whether they could live there. The wife’s two daughters remained in Melbourne. During that time the husband provided the wife $15,500 per month to pay the expenses of the house in which her daughters were living, the two mortgages secured against the Suburb D and Suburb C properties of approximately $11,500 per month, rates, insurances and utilities. That amount was subsequently increased to $17,500 per month.
In August 2020, the parties separated and the wife and the parties’ son returned to Australia. Their son commenced school at a private school in Suburb C, as the private school he had previously attended did not have any vacancies. The husband continued to pay to the wife $17,500 per month, of which 11,500 per month was applied to the two mortgages.
In May 2021, the wife requested the husband to transfer additional money for their son’s school fees and school uniform. The husband transferred an additional $2,500 which was approximately half of the school fees outstanding.
In June 2021, the husband transferred to the wife $16,000 for her previous month expenses and in July 2021 the husband transferred $14,500 for the previous month expenses.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the husband has paid the sum of $15,000 to the wife and that dispute centres around whether he has paid her expenses in advance or in arrears. Nothing much turns on that dispute.
On 9 August 2021, the matter was listed before me in the duty list and consent orders were entered into by the parties, pending the adjourned date. The orders included for the wife to receive $150,000 from the proceeds of sale of the Suburb C land which settled on 11 August 2021.
The balance of proceeds of sale of the Suburb C land are $662,397.50 which remains in the trust account of the wife’s lawyers. Prior to the settlement of the sale of Suburb C, the mortgage payment for July 2021 was deducted by the mortgagee, as the wife asserted that the husband did not transfer to her sufficient money to enable her to pay that mortgage instalment. The wife repaid loans to family, friends and a litigation funder, amounting to approximately $100,000.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
The wife relied upon the following documents:
(a)Initiating Application filed 11 June 2021;
(b)Application in a Case (Child Support) of the wife filed 3 August 2021;
(c)affidavits of the wife filed 11 June 2021, 3 August 2021 and 19 August 2021;
(d)Financial Statement of the wife filed 19 August 2021.
The husband relied upon the following documents:
(a)Response filed 7 August 2021;
(b)affidavit of the husband filed 7 August 2021;
(c)Financial Statement of the husband filed 7 August 2021;
(d)tender bundle of documents.
I will address each category of orders sought by the wife.
SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE
The wife seeks the sum of $8,750 per month by way of interim spousal maintenance from the husband, which she submits equates to just over $2,000 per week, together with payment of the mortgage and outgoings, including rates, insurances and water rates, for the Suburb D property.
The husband proposes that he pay the wife of $5,000 per month periodic spousal maintenance, together with the mortgage payments for the Suburb D property and $500 per month towards the rates and home insurance referable to that property.
Section 72(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides that:
(1)A party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party, to the extent that the first-mentioned party is reasonably able to do so, if, and only if, that other party is unable to support herself or himself adequately whether:
(a)by reason of having the care and control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years;
(b)by reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment; or
(c)for any other adequate reason;
having regard to any relevant matter referred to in subsection 75(2).
In In the marriage of Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600 the Full Court set out what it said was required for the Court to make an order for spousal maintenance at [81982] to [81983] as follows:
(l) a threshold finding under s 72;
(2) consideration of s 74 and s 75(2);
(3)no fettering principle that pre-separation standard of living must automatically be awarded where the respondent's means permit; and
(4)discretion exercised in accordance with the provisions of s 74, with ``reasonableness in the circumstances'’ as the guiding principle.
In Brown & Brown [2007] FamCA 151 at [161], the Full Court referred to the applicable principles:
•The word “adequately” is not to be determined according to any fixed or absolute standard.
•The idea that “adequate” means a subsistence level has been firmly rejected.
•Where possible both spouses should continue to live after separation at the level which they previously enjoyed if this is reasonable, although the parties’ standard of living may have to be lower if financial resources are insufficient to maintain that standard.
•In some circumstances it may be reasonable for the parties to live at a higher standard than previously enjoyed.
•It is not necessary for an applicant for maintenance to use up all capital in order to satisfy the requirement that he/she is unable to support himself/herself adequately.
•However, an applicant is not entitled to live at a level of considerable luxury or comfort merely because the other party is very wealthy.
In support of her application, Senior Counsel for the wife submitted that the relevant s 75(2) factors to be taken into account are as follows:
(a)the income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment;
(b)the care and control of the child of the marriage who has not yet attained 18 years;
(c)the commitments of the wife necessary to maintain both the child of the marriage and her daughter, who is not yet 18;
(d)a standard of living that is reasonable in all the circumstances;
(e)the duration of the marriage and the extent to which it has affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration; and
(f)the need to protect the party who wishes to continue that party’s role as a parent.
Senior Counsel for the wife further submitted the considerations relevant to my determination are:
(a)although the wife’s Initiating Application sought the spousal maintenance order as either urgent or interim, subsequent to the husband filing a Financial Statement, which shows his capacity to pay the amount sought, it is appropriate to make an order on an interim basis;
(b)the husband’s proposed interim orders conceded both the wife’s entitlement to spousal maintenance and a child support order and it is only the quantum of both orders with which he disagrees;
(c)it is agreed between the parties:
(i)the wife is the sole carer of their son and has always been so;
(ii)the wife remained living in Australia whilst the husband lived in Country J and travels extensively for his career;
(iii)the wife has frequently travelled internationally to meet with the husband;
(d)her capacity to obtain and retain employment has been limited by her role in caring for their son and travel involved to maintain the marriage;
(e)the wife and their son lived in Country J from January 2020 until September 2020 and arrived in Melbourne in the middle of a lockdown;
(f)she is an educator who has not worked since 2012;
(g)the wife would face considerable difficulties trying to earn a living as an educator during rolling lockdowns which have occurred since her return to Melbourne.
The husband’s case is that he has paid the wife on average $17,000 per month by way of maintenance over at least the last two years, which was reduced to $15,500 per month during the time of the wife and child lived in Country J. According to the wife, of the $17,000 per month, she applied $11,500 to pay the mortgages on the Suburb D and Suburb C properties which left her with $5,500 per month to meet the expenses of her household.
From mid-2021, the husband ceased providing additional funds to cover the child’s school fees, so that the wife was required to meet the balance of educational fees and expenses from her spousal maintenance payments. The child’s school fees, without any additional education expenses, are $1,574 per month. From the amounts paid by the husband, after deduction of mortgages and the child school fees the wife was left with approximately $4,000 per month to meet her household expenses, which the wife submits cannot be seen as excessive or particularly generous in the context of the husband’s financial capacity. I consider the issue of child support later in these reasons.
In terms of the husband’s capacity to pay, I was directed to his Financial Statement filed on 7 August 2021. At item A of part B, the husband deposes to average weekly income of $51,346 and at item B total personal expenditure of $32,407. That results in a net excess of income over expenditure of approximately $18,900 per week. The amount provided to the wife and the child’s living expenses equated to approximately 5% of the husband’s excess income over expenses.
However, a closer examination of the husband’s Financial Statement establishes that the husband’s excess income is greater than the amount deposed to. At item 22 of Part G, he lists mortgage payments of $2,655 per week referable to the Suburb D and Suburb C properties. The Suburb C property has now been sold and the husband has been relieved of any obligation to pay that mortgage, which was for previously $1,600 per week. Additionally, at item 30 of Part G, he deposes to a weekly credit card payment of $2,100, which is clearly incorrect as he also deposes to a minimum payment of $274 per week. Taking into consideration the inaccuracies of his claimed expenses, the husband’s surplus income around $22,000 per week, which equates to an annual excess income of over $1 million per annum.
The husband deposes to having paid $615,761 over the past two years and three months for the benefit of the wife and the child. The wife points out that a substantial amount of this was applied towards the two mortgages and the balance towards school fees and her other Australian expenses. The wife deposes that additional expenses were incurred such as the selling costs of the Suburb G property and costs incurred by her to replace of furnishings which were sold with that property.
It was submitted on behalf of the wife that given the husband’s annual excess income as stated in his Financial Statement is $962,000, the payment of $615,000 to support the wife and child over two years and three months is hardly excessive and well within his capacity to pay.
According to Senior Counsel for the wife, the amount of $8,750 per month for spousal maintenance is justified by the expenses set out in her Financial Statement, including Part M. The amount claimed by the wife is $3,750 per month more than the husband is prepared to pay to her. The amount offered to the wife is equivalent to $60,000 per annum, which is less than two thirds of the husband’s monthly excess income, which is not reasonable or proper given the expenses deposed to by the wife and the husband’s excess income.
Counsel for the husband submitted that the amount proposed by the husband for monthly spousal maintenance, $5,000, is adequate to support the wife and that the amount she is currently seeking for her support and the support of the parties’ son is equivalent to $17,500 per month, which is more than the status quo.
The husband proposes paying the wife $5,000 per month spousal maintenance, $4,400 per month for the Suburb D mortgage, $500 per month for rates and insurances and $1,575 per month for school fees for the child. His proposed support equates to $11,466 per month, in circumstances where he was previously paying $17,000 per month, with the requirement for the Suburb C mortgage of $1,600 per month to be paid from the spousal support.
It was also submitted that the husband is a professional sportsman who would be subject to a reduction of his income as he was at the end of his playing career and the court should take judicial notice that he needed to make plans for his future and retirement. Despite Item 14 in Part D of his Financial Statement which disclosed that the husband received benefits from his business of $15,227 per week, it was submitted that he was not currently receiving that amount, although there was no acceptable explanation why that amount had been included in his Financial Statement as recently as 6 August 2021, if that were correct.
The husband submits that the support he has proposed is more than adequate to cater to the wife’s needs and that she is seeking additional sums from him, namely $3,750 per month spousal support and $2,037 per month in periodic child support, in order to support extended members of her family, when the husband has no obligation to contribute to their support. To that extent, it is not reasonable support, or support for her own needs.
By way of example, the phone bill which was included in the husband’s tender bundle demonstrates that account provides for three mobile phones and three tablets within the wife’s household, which the husband asserts is not his responsibility to pay.
Submissions were also made about the wife’s failure to explain significant transactions from her bank statement which was included in the husband’s tender bundle. It is submitted that the wife has an obligation to disclose where those sums have been transferred and how the funds which the husband has paid to her have been applied by the wife. It was also submitted that the wife had failed to comply with her disclosure obligations in this regard as she had not provided bank statements of the accounts into which the funds were transferred.
It was also submitted that the payments sought by the wife would result in her effectively not contributing to the support of the parties’ son, despite her legal obligation to do so.
During her reply submissions, Senior Counsel for the wife stated that the transfers referred to by Counsel for the husband, namely those which occurred in June and July for significant amounts, were in fact transfers into a credit card account of the husband and the statements were available to him. The wife had been using a credit card in the husband’s name to pay her expenses and upon payment of the spousal support, it was her practice to transfer sums of money into the credit card account to pay off her expenditure. Other amounts pointed to by Counsel for the husband were transfers into the mortgage accounts for one of the properties, which was in joint names and the husband had access to those bank accounts as well.
It was also submitted in reply, that the wife has an obligation to support her daughter under the age of 18, which is a relevant s 75(2) factor, and that many of the expenses claimed by her in part N of her Financial Statement such as house repairs, gas, electricity, heating, fuel and motor vehicle expenses were also for the benefit of the parties child and payment of those expenses was that the wife discharging her obligations to contribute to her son’s support.
After considering the submissions of counsel for both parties and examining the respective Financial Statements of the parties, I concur with the submissions of Senior Counsel for the wife and consider it appropriate that the husband pay interim spousal support to her in the sum of $8,750 per month as sought.
That payment must be seen in the context of both the wife’s needs and expenditure, which other than the telephone bill, was not the subject of adverse submissions from Counsel for husband and the husband’s extraordinary capacity to pay. The amounts claimed by the wife, in my view are not excessive in the context of the lifestyle enjoyed by this family and the support paid by the husband to the wife whilst the marriage was intact. The living circumstances of the husband and wife for the much of the marriage was similar to those now, namely that the wife remained in Australia with the child, and travelled internationally, with the husband living in Country J. Nothing much has changed in that regard and I accept that the wife’s expenses would be similar to those which she incurred during the marriage. The only distinguishing feature is the sale of the Suburb C property, which alleviates the need for payment of the mortgage secured against it. Whilst I accept that his income may reduce sometime in the future, I must make a determination on the evidence before me as to the husband’s current financial situation, which is as set out in his Financial Statement. The husband clearly has the capacity to pay spousal maintenance to the wife as sought by her and I will make an order accordingly.
CHILD SUPPORT
Subsequent to 9 August 2021, when this matter was first listed for determination, the parties have been able to reach some agreement about the financial support of their son.
The husband consents to orders providing for him to pay the child school fees at his private school, upon receipt of an invoice from the school. Those fees are estimated at around $1,500 per month. Additionally, he will consent to an order to refund the wife the cost of the child’s school uniforms, upon receiving a receipt or tax invoice from the wife.
The issue in dispute is whether or not the husband should pay an additional periodic amount of child support as sought by the wife in the sum of $2,037 per month. The order is sought pursuant to s 139 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (“the CSA”), which provides for the court to make an order of urgent child maintenance in the event that no prior assessment of child support has been made.
The quantum sought by the wife is justified by the expenditure for the child set out in part N of her Financial Statement which is $470 per week and she therefore seeks $2,037 per month child support.
Senior Counsel for the wife relied upon the principles of the CSA as set out in s 4, which include that the level of financial support provided for children is to be determined according to the capacity of the parent to pay and the costs of the child. It was submitted that clearly the husband has the capacity to pay the amount sought by the wife of the child’s periodic support and the amount sought is based on the expenses she deposes are incurred by her for the support of the child. The husband did not specifically object to any of the expenses as sought by the wife, rather it seemed that his case was that the wife was claiming excessive support from him, however it was categorised and that the wife should also contribute to the child’s support.
As referred to earlier in these reasons, the wife’s case was that she does contribute to the support of the child by providing a roof over his head with all of the attendant expenses, albeit that is met from payments from the husband to her.
I was not persuaded that there was any reason that the husband should not contribute to the periodic support of the child and in the context of the husband’s capacity to contribute to the child support, I consider it appropriate that he pay the sum of $2,037 per month by way of periodic support, in addition to payment of the school fees and reimbursement of uniform expenses.
PART PROPERTY SETTLEMENT
The orders made by consent on 10 August 2021 include orders that the wife receive the sum of $150,000 from the proceeds of sale of the Suburb C property and that the balance be paid into her solicitor’s trust account. The wife now seeks that the balance of the proceeds of sale of the property, $662,397.50 be paid to her by way of part property settlement.
The wife submits that a payment to her of the whole of the proceeds of sale of the Suburb C property, $812,397.50, amounts to approximately 20% of the husband’s overall estimated pool of $4,062,508. Amongst other matters, the wife seeks to purchase a seven seater vehicle for approximately $50,000 to safely transport herself and the children in circumstances where her motor vehicle was written off in an accident in 2020.
By his consent to the order of 10 August 2021, that the wife receive a partial property settlement of $150,000, it is submitted that he therefore concedes the appropriateness of such an order, although he seeks to limit it to $150,000. The husband seeks an order that the balance of the proceeds of sale be applied to discharge the mortgage against the Suburb C property, which would result in a mortgage of approximately $230,000.
Senior Counsel for the wife submitted that the only reason as to the limitation in quantum is referred to at paragraph 40 of his affidavit, where he deposes that it is not just and equitable for the wife to retain the entire proceeds of sale of the Suburb C property, when his capacity to earn income is at significant risk as he ages. According to Senior Counsel, that submission fails to take into account the remaining 80% of the asset pool for division between the parties which, except for the remaining equity in the Suburb C property, is located in Country J and is in the husband’s name and under his control. That asset pool includes over $1.25 million in his bank accounts and $1.5 million in shares and investments together with various other properties in Country J and the husband’s business, which is yet to be valued.
Senior Counsel for the wife submitted that it was proper to make the part property payment as sought by the wife in circumstances where she has no property in her sole control or any assets to provide a financial buffer and where she has to pay legal fees. The husband enjoys a vastly superior financial position to the wife as he has significant assets and his enormous income, in contrast to the wife who is entirely dependent upon him for financial support and who has no independent assets or resources. She relied on the statements of the Full Court of this court in Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) [2009] FamCAFC 166 (“Strahan”) at [132]–[141] inclusive. The orders sought by the wife for payment to her of the full proceeds of sale of the Suburb C property, are orders in the interests of justice.
Counsel for the husband opposed the payment of the balance of proceeds of sale to the wife and submitted that they should be applied towards reduction of the mortgage secured against the property, which would in turn reduce the monthly mortgage commitments preferable to that property.
Relying on the statements at [138] of Strahan, it was submitted that the wife had failed to provide evidence of the likely costs of litigation and that her statements at paragraph 31 of her affidavit of 19 August 2021 demonstrated that her indebtedness to her daughter and cousin were not pressing liabilities.
The legal principles in Strahan are well settled and both parties acknowledged that the wife did not need to establish that she had a need for an interim property settlement. There were no submissions by counsel for the husband that the wife would be unlikely to receive such an amount in a final adjustment of property between the parties.
In the circumstances I am persuaded by the submissions of Senior Counsel for the wife that the balance of proceeds of sale of the Suburb C property should be paid to the wife. The husband’s income does not necessitate a reduction of the mortgage secured against the Suburb D property and in my view it is just and equitable that each party is placed in a financial position where each have capital resources, as opposed to the husband having significant resources and the wife having none whatsoever and being completely dependent on the husband for her support.
I intend to make orders accordingly.
Counsel for both parties raised the issue of disclosure which was addressed in their respective case outlines. There seem to be consensus that the parties were working cooperatively towards disclosure and that I did not need to address any disclosure issues in these reasons. Indeed there were no specific submissions about disclosure. I indicated to both Counsel that if there were future problems are about disclosure, a joint letter to my associate seeking a listing before a registrar would be appropriate and the matter would thereafter be allocated a date before a registrar to determine any disclosure dispute.
There were also brief submissions about an outstanding issue between the parties as to whether or not the husband had paid an amount of $15,000 which was due to the wife. I was informed that the genesis of the dispute was whether the payment by the husband were paid in advance or in arrears. This matter was not significantly advanced by either counsel and in the circumstances I do not intend to make an order in that regard, other than to remark that the husband of course should comply with orders for payment of spousal maintenance, which I understand he has substantially done to date.
I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Williams. Associate:
Dated: 9 September 2021
0