Ganem and Ganem & Ors

In *Ganem & Ganem and Ors* [2013] FamCA 148, the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the wife for interim spousal maintenance, interim adult child maintenance, child support, and an interim property order. The husband, Mr Ganem, and Ganem Pty Ltd were the respondents. The wife sought to advance these interim applications concurrently with a contempt application she had filed against the husband.

The court was required to determine whether the wife had established a threshold entitlement to spousal and adult child maintenance, and if so, whether the husband had the capacity to pay. It also needed to consider the competency of the wife's child support application and whether an interim property order for $200,000 was just and equitable in the circumstances. A key consideration was how the husband's alleged failure to provide full financial disclosure, in the context of the serious contempt application, should impact the court's assessment of his financial capacity.

Justice Ryan found that while the wife had established a threshold entitlement to spousal maintenance due to her inability to adequately support herself on her current income, there was a paucity of evidence regarding the husband's capacity to pay. The court noted that the serious nature of the contempt application, which had a factual nexus to the matters in dispute, meant that the husband's failure to provide up-to-date financial material should not be criticised in the same way it might have been absent such proceedings. Consequently, the court was unable to determine the husband's capacity to pay spousal or child maintenance. Furthermore, the wife's child support application was deemed incompetent as no administrative assessment had been sought. Regarding the interim property order, although the husband agreed the wife was entitled to a significant property settlement, she failed to demonstrate that he had access to the requested $200,000 or could readily rearrange his finances to raise it.

Accordingly, the wife's applications for interim property orders and interim maintenance were dismissed. The court noted that the wife or receivers controlled most assets acquired during the marriage, and the totality of the evidence left it unable to determine the husband's capacity to pay maintenance.