Cuny and Cuny (No 2)

In *Cuny and Cuny (No 2)*, the wife sought to vary existing consent orders for interim spousal maintenance, contending that the amount was inadequate and that her circumstances had changed. The parties also sought orders for partial property settlement to address legal costs, given the substantial equity in their former matrimonial home. The proceedings were heard by Rees J in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the wife had demonstrated a sufficient change in circumstances to justify varying the interim spousal maintenance orders under section 83 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and whether it was just and equitable to make orders for partial property settlement to facilitate payment of legal costs.

Rees J dismissed the wife's application to vary spousal maintenance, finding that she had failed to establish that such a variation was justified. Regarding the property settlement, the court considered the applications for partial settlement to be insignificant in the context of the parties' overall net assets. His Honour concluded that it was just and equitable to make orders for partial property settlement in favour of both parties.

Consequently, the wife's application to vary the interim spousal maintenance orders was dismissed. The court ordered that within seven days, the husband and wife were to pay, by way of interim property settlement, $120,000 to the husband and $137,000 to the wife.