Crest and Oates

In the Family Court of Australia at Adelaide, Mr Crest (the applicant husband) sought interim orders against Ms Oates (the respondent wife). The husband requested orders for the wife to pay lump sum spousal maintenance, periodic spousal maintenance, and an amount by way of interim property settlement. He also sought injunctions restraining the wife from selling or encumbering assets, and orders for his personal protection. The wife sought the dismissal of all applications made by the husband.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interim orders for property and spousal maintenance, and whether to issue personal protection injunctions. Specifically, the court had to consider the husband's alleged need for financial support and the wife's capacity to pay, as well as the husband's claims of harassment and the wife's alleged actions at a Sydney theatre and subsequently at Ms Q's property. The court also had to assess whether it was just and convenient to grant injunctions restraining the parties from dealing with certain assets pending the final hearing.

Justice Watts applied the principles for granting interim property orders, requiring compelling circumstances and a conservative exercise of power, ensuring that remaining property would be adequate for the final hearing. The court found the husband had demonstrated a need for $984 per week in spousal maintenance and that the wife had the capacity to pay this amount. Regarding interim property settlement, the court found compelling reasons for the husband to receive $107,000, considering his current accommodation and legal costs. For personal protection, the court noted the conflicting evidence but found sufficient basis, based on undisputed matters and admitted conduct, to grant an order restraining the wife from communicating with the husband except through their legal advisers and from coming within 100 metres of a specified property.

Pending further order, the court ordered that the previous orders of 2 May 2007 be discharged. Both parties were restrained from dealing with or further encumbering the property at B1. The wife was restrained from dealing with her superannuation fund in a way that would reduce the funds invested with M Ltd below $680,000. The wife was ordered to pay the husband $107,000 by way of interim property settlement within seven days, and $984 per week by way of spousal maintenance, with the first payment due within seven days. The wife was also restrained from communicating with the husband except through their legal advisers and from coming within 100 metres of B2.