CLOSE & CLOSE

In the matter of *Close & Close*, the wife sought interim property settlement, periodic interim spousal maintenance, and orders for her future legal expenses. The husband sought to dismiss the wife's applications. The proceedings were before Ryan J of the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether an interim property settlement order should be made, considering the short duration of the marriage, the disputed facts, and the difficulty in assessing the asset pool. Secondly, whether the wife was entitled to interim periodic spousal maintenance and lump sum payments for her legal fees, given her nil actual income from her business and her inability to immediately crystallise losses. Thirdly, whether there were justifying circumstances under section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) for an order that the husband pay the wife's legal costs. Finally, the court considered whether special circumstances existed under section 117(2)(a)(iii) of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) to justify a departure from the child support assessment, and if so, whether such an order would be just and equitable.

Regarding the interim property settlement, Ryan J found that a preliminary assessment was difficult due to disputed facts and the uncertain value of the asset pool. It was not possible to conclude that the wife could reimburse a partial property order or that such an order would not compromise the court's ability to achieve a just and equitable final settlement. Consequently, the application for interim property settlement was dismissed. For spousal maintenance, the court accepted that the wife had nil actual income and it was not reasonable for her to close her business and establish an alternate career before final property orders were made. The husband's income significantly exceeded his expenses, and he had the capacity to pay interim periodic spousal maintenance. However, the husband did not have the capacity to pay the wife's legal fees without borrowing, and the wife's proposed legal expenses were considered excessive. Therefore, the application for periodic spousal maintenance was granted, but the application for lump sum payments for legal fees was dismissed. The court also dismissed the wife's application for costs under section 117 of the *Family Law Act*, finding that while the wife lacked capacity to meet her expenses and the husband was in a stronger financial position, the findings in the interim property proceedings and the potential for serious injustice to the husband outweighed the wife's justifying circumstances. Finally, the application for child support departure was dismissed, as the court found that the combined effect of spousal maintenance and existing child support payments was sufficient for the wife to meet her expenses and the child's proper needs, and a departure order would not be just or equitable.