FILMER & FILMER

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FILMER & FILMER [2012] FamCA 783

FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – interim orders – application by the husband seeking that previous orders for spousal maintenance be discharged or alternatively, be varied – where the wife seeks that the amount of spousal maintenance be increased with the husband to pay the costs of the maintenance of the former matrimonial home – where there are significant issues about the financial circumstances of the husband – where the Court was not in a position to make a determination based on the material it had before it – application adjourned and orders that the parties file further material.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Filmer

RESPONDENT: Mr Filmer

FILE NUMBER: ADC 3244 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 28 August 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Dawe J

HEARING DATE: 28 August 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Burrell

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: David Burrell & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: n/a

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

UPON NOTING THAT the husband is to file and serve a notice of address for service within 7 days from today.

(1)The applications filed by the husband and the wife are adjourned to 3 December 2012 at 9.15am.

(2)During the period of the adjournment the current orders are to remain in place.

(3)The parties file and serve any further affidavit material which is to be relied on at the adjournment by no later than 26 November 2012.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Filmer & Filmer has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 3244 of 2010

Ms Filmer

Applicant

And

Mr Filmer

Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an Application in a Case by the husband filed on 5 July 2012.  In that Application in a Case, the orders sought by the husband were that the order for spouse maintenance made on 21 December 2011 be discharged, or in the alternative “that the order be varied to such other sum as the Honourable Court deems just and equitable”.  The application sought “that it be heard at the earliest opportunity”.

2. When that application was lodged, the husband was represented by solicitors.  Accompanying the application was an affidavit of the husband also filed 5 July 2012. 

3. In response, the wife has filed a response to the application in which she seeks orders that the application by the husband be dismissed and that the spouse maintenance be varied by substituting $1500 for the figure of $1000, or by substituting the figure of $1250 for the figure of $1000, with the husband to forthwith pay, or organise and pay the reasonable costs of maintenance to the former matrimonial home.  That response to the application was also accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the wife. 

4. On the…