Cirillo & Cirillo (No. 3)

In *Cirillo & Cirillo (No. 3)*, Harper J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for interim spousal maintenance and litigation funding against the husband. The dispute arose within the context of significant property and financial resources, where the husband acknowledged the wife's entitlement to a partial property settlement and litigation funding. However, the husband contended that existing debt financing arrangements prevented the immediate payment of these sums, despite evidence of his access to substantial financial resources both in Australia and overseas.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the wife's application for interim spousal maintenance and litigation funding, and if so, the appropriate quantum and timing of such payments, notwithstanding the husband's claims regarding debt financing. The court was required to assess the husband's capacity to pay and the wife's need for financial assistance to continue the proceedings and maintain herself.

Harper J reasoned that the husband's concessions regarding the wife's entitlement and his acknowledged access to significant financial resources weighed heavily in favour of granting the application. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically sections 79 and 80(1) concerning property settlement and maintenance, and section 117 regarding costs. The court found that the husband's financial position was such that he could meet the wife's interim financial needs, and that the debt financing arrangements did not wholly preclude him from making the ordered payments.

Accordingly, the court ordered that within twenty-one days, the husband pay $1,000,000.00 to the wife by way of partial property settlement and $500,000.00 into the trust account of the wife's solicitors for her legal costs and disbursements.