Gelb & Gelb

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for interim property settlement and, alternatively, interim spousal maintenance. The dispute arose from the parties' separation and their differing proposals for the division of substantial assets accumulated during their 24-year marriage. The wife sought $15 million as an interim property settlement, while the husband proposed a different arrangement for interim financial support.

The court was required to determine whether to exercise its power to make an interim property settlement order, considering the principles outlined in *Harris v Harris*. This involved assessing whether the circumstances were compelling enough to warrant an order before a final hearing, ensuring the order was conservative and would not jeopardise the parties' legitimate expectations at the final determination, and confirming that such an order fell within the parameters of section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to consider the husband's proposals for repairs to a property and the commencement of development work on a slipway.

Justice Moore reasoned that while a final hearing is generally preferred, the court has the power to make interim property orders in compelling circumstances. He found that the wife's situation, where she controlled access to liquid funds, coupled with her legitimate claim for a significant property settlement and her desire to manage her finances with dignity, including making superannuation contributions and paying legal fees, constituted sufficiently compelling circumstances. The court noted that the wife's requested interim payment of $10 million represented a modest proportion of the parties' estimated net assets of approximately $833 million and fell below the husband's proposed final settlement amount. The court also determined that the repairs and development work on the property should proceed, given their necessity for maintenance and to avoid the lapse of development approval, and that resources were available for this purpose.

The court ordered the husband and wife to take all necessary steps to distribute $10 million from funds invested with Macquarie Private Bank to the wife by way of interim property settlement within 14 days. Additionally, the husband was ordered to undertake and pay for specified repairs to the property at G1, subject to his approval of the work and the engagement of professionals. The wife was required to provide an undertaking to permit contractors access to the G properties for the husband to commence and continue work on the slipway according to the approved development application.