CHAFFIN & CHAFFIN

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Chaffin (the wife) against Mr Chaffin (the husband) concerning spousal maintenance, litigation funding, and injunctions. The wife sought orders for the husband to pay her $7,000 per week in spousal maintenance, an injunction restraining him from dealing with his assets, and $130,000 in lump sum litigation costs. The husband opposed these applications, arguing that a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA) signed by the parties prior to their marriage barred the wife's claims.

The court was required to determine whether the asserted Binding Financial Agreement ousted its jurisdiction to consider the wife's applications for spousal maintenance and litigation funding. It also needed to assess the wife's needs and the husband's capacity to pay spousal maintenance, and whether an injunction was warranted to preserve assets. The court further had to consider the wife's application for a lump sum payment towards her legal costs, given the disparity in the parties' financial positions.

The court found that the Binding Financial Agreement did not oust its jurisdiction regarding spousal maintenance, as a clause within the agreement stipulated that its spousal maintenance provisions had no effect if there were children of the marriage at the time of separation. As the parties had three young children, this clause rendered the BFA inoperative concerning spousal maintenance. The court also determined that the existence of the BFA did not prevent it from considering the wife's application for litigation funding or injunctions. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court noted the wife's unemployment and sole care of the parties' three young children, all under the age of seven, rendering her unable to support herself. While the wife's stated needs were not considered reasonable, the husband possessed significant financial resources and capacity to pay. The court also found that there was no evidence to suggest the husband would dispose of his assets, and therefore, no injunction was made.

Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $1,000 per week by way of periodic spousal maintenance. Furthermore, the court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of $130,000 towards the wife's legal costs and disbursements, acknowledging the significant disparity in the parties' financial resources and the wife's unemployed status and care of the children.