Fisher and Fisher

This matter concerned an interim hearing in the Family Court of Australia between Ms Fisher (the applicant wife) and Mr Fisher (the respondent husband). The primary issue before the court was the rental of a vacant unit located at the rear of the property where the wife and the parties' four children resided. The husband, who was not living at the property, sought to return to the rear unit, where his furniture and possessions were stored.

The court was required to determine whether the vacant rear unit should be rented on the commercial market or if the husband should be permitted to return to reside there. This decision was complicated by several factors, including the husband's current accommodation difficulties, the wife's financial circumstances, outstanding criminal proceedings against the husband relating to alleged sexual assaults, and a current family violence intervention order. The court also noted the potential impact on the children, particularly one daughter who had not been attending supervised visits with her father.

Justice Young acknowledged the complexity of the financial and children's issues before the court, noting that the Independent Children's Lawyer was not present as the focus of the hearing was on the rental of the unit. The court considered the husband's assertion that he had previously paid spousal maintenance in lieu of renting the unit, and his voluntary statement regarding child support payments. The judge expressed a strong inclination to have the property rented commercially, deeming it common sense for it to generate income. However, to allow for further submissions and evidence, the court adjourned the matter for a further hearing.

The court ordered that the wife's application concerning the rental of the rear unit be adjourned for further hearing on 18 August 2011. Both parties were directed to file brief affidavits summarising their reasons for or against renting the unit, with specific instructions for the wife to include details of any outstanding criminal charges known to her. The husband was given the opportunity to outline his reasons for wishing to return to the unit. In the interim, inquiries regarding potential rental income and tenants could be made, but no lease was to be entered into. Costs were reserved.