BISSETT & BISSETT

In *Bissett & Bissett*, the Family Court of Australia considered six disputed issues between the husband and wife concerning interim parenting, property, and spousal maintenance. The wife sought sole occupancy of the former matrimonial home, specific parenting orders for their 15-year-old son, including an injunction against the husband viewing pornography, and financial assistance. The husband sought to draw down $30,000 from the mortgage for litigation funding and opposed most of the wife's applications.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interim parenting orders, including sole occupancy of the home and an injunction regarding the husband's behaviour with pornography, considering the paramountcy of the child's best interests. It also had to assess the wife's claim for spousal maintenance and the husband's application for litigation funding. The court was cautioned against making definitive findings of fact on contentious issues at an interim stage, particularly where evidence was untested.

Regarding parenting, the court noted the parties' agreement for equal shared parental responsibility but found insufficient evidence to justify the wife's requested orders for sole occupancy or an injunction against the husband's behaviour, citing the need for real necessity and a clear factual basis for such orders, as established in cases like *G v J* and *Scholte and Scholte*. The wife's claim for spousal maintenance was dismissed as she did not meet the threshold under section 72 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), given her income and ability to support herself. The husband's application for litigation funding was also not granted, with the court noting the wife's opposition and the limited property and income involved.

Ultimately, the court made an agreed order for equal shared parental responsibility and an injunction restraining the husband from viewing or accessing pornography in the presence of the child. All other interim orders sought by the wife were dismissed, and the husband's application for litigation funding was not granted.