COTTARD & CRICHTON

In the Family Court of Australia, Watts J considered objections to evidence raised by the husband in proceedings initiated by the wife. The dispute concerned property settlement, interim spousal maintenance, and related applications. The wife had attached written communications to her application, which the husband argued were inadmissible under section 131 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) as they related to attempts to negotiate a settlement.

The court was required to determine whether the communications attracted the privilege against disclosure under section 131 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), and specifically how section 131(2)(g) of that Act should be construed in relation to offers of settlement. Additionally, the court considered the husband's application for disqualification based on the wife's reliance on settlement communications, and the wife's applications for interim property settlement, spousal maintenance, and property injunctions.

Watts J reasoned that the offers of settlement did not fall within the exceptions to the privilege provided by section 131(2)(g) of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), adopting a broad construction of the provision. Consequently, the husband's objection to this part of the evidence was upheld, and his disqualification application was dismissed. Taking into account the parties' former luxurious lifestyle, the husband's substantial assets exceeding $25 million, and his prior undertaking to support the wife, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife a lump sum of $50,000 within 14 days and interim spousal maintenance of $3,000 per week, subject to a quarterly adjustment based on the wife's income exceeding $3,120. The wife's applications concerning a motor vehicle and for property injunctions were dismissed, and costs were reserved for both parties.