BODILLY & HAND

In the matter of *Bodilly & Hand*, heard by Cronin J, the court considered a dispute concerning spousal maintenance and an application for an extension of time to pursue costs from a prior appeal. The wife, who had a medical condition and had been receiving spousal maintenance for many years, sought to vary existing orders. The husband, despite being wealthy, wished to retire but also had a second family, with significant property interests held by his second wife.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to vary the existing spousal maintenance orders, considering the wife's eligibility for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the husband's financial circumstances and retirement plans, and whether to grant the wife an extension of time to pursue costs from a 2013 appeal. The court was required to distinguish between necessary and discretionary expenditure for both parties when assessing the maintenance claim.

Cronin J reasoned that the wife's eligibility for the NDIS did not necessarily extinguish the husband's obligation to pay spousal maintenance, particularly given the long-standing nature of the order and the husband's financial capacity. The court considered the husband's desire to retire and his obligations to his second family, balancing these against the wife's ongoing needs. Regarding the costs application, the court determined that the wife had not followed the correct procedure by failing to approach the Full Court or a Full Court judge for an extension of time to dispute costs from the 2013 appeal.

Consequently, the court varied the spousal maintenance orders, fixing the amount at $500 per week. The wife's application for an extension of time to dispute the itemised costs account was struck out. The wife's application for costs was adjourned for determination, and the initiating application and amended response were otherwise dismissed.