Goncharova & Goncharov

In the matter of *Goncharova & Goncharov*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the wife for interim spousal maintenance by way of a lump sum payment and for litigation funding, against the husband's application to dismiss these claims. The wife, who has primary care of one child and part care of another, asserted she was unable to adequately support herself. The husband, though unemployed, was receiving financial support from his parents. The wife also sought litigation funding, arguing that a level playing field did not exist as she was unable to meet her legal fees, while the husband had been able to do so, and that the litigation was complex.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's applications for interim spousal maintenance and litigation funding. Specifically, the court needed to assess the wife's need for financial support and her inability to meet her legal costs, in light of the husband's financial circumstances, including his reliance on parental support and his past significant withdrawals from joint accounts. The court also had to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to make an order for interim property distribution to address the disparity in litigation funding.

Berman J reasoned that the wife had an arguable case for both spousal maintenance and litigation funding. The court applied principles relating to interim spousal maintenance, considering the wife's inability to support herself and the husband's capacity to provide support, even if indirectly. Regarding litigation funding, the court recognised the importance of a level playing field in complex litigation where parties have arguable cases, and the wife was demonstrably unable to fund her legal representation. The court also considered the power to make interim property distributions to facilitate litigation.

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $55,140 by way of lump sum spousal maintenance within 28 days. Additionally, the husband was ordered to pay a further $180,000 by way of partial settlement of property within 60 days. In the event of non-compliance with these orders, the parties were directed to take steps to market and sell the property at Suburb E. The proceedings were also listed for a Registrar to determine discovery and the appointment of experts to value the husband's shares in two companies. The husband was also ordered to file and serve an amended response detailing his final orders sought.