GRESHAM & GRESHAM

The case of *Gresham & Gresham* involved an application by the husband to vary interim orders previously made on 19 October 2018. The dispute centred on whether certain expenditures by the wife constituted changed circumstances that would render the enforcement of those existing orders unjust. The matter came before McClelland DCJ.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband had discharged the onus of proving that the wife's expenditure on landscaping and personal items amounted to changed circumstances justifying a variation of the interim orders. The court was required to consider the principles for varying interlocutory orders, particularly as established in *Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Limited v Philip Morris Incorporated*, which requires evidence of new facts or discovered circumstances rendering enforcement unjust. The court also had to navigate the inherent difficulties in making findings of fact at an interim stage, as highlighted in *Iphostrou & Iphostrou* and *Acton & Burton*.

McClelland DCJ reasoned that at this interim stage, there was insufficient evidence to make definitive findings of fact regarding the wife's expenditures. The wife's evidence suggested the landscaping was necessary for safety and to maintain the property's value, while the husband's claims of personal expenditure were met with evidence of significant returns to the relevant bank account. Without more detailed evidence and the wife's opportunity to explain these transactions, the court was not prepared to conclude that the wife's actions were wasteful or capricious, and therefore, the husband had not met the threshold for varying the existing orders.

The court made several orders, including directing the husband to release specific sums of money to the wife and her solicitors, and to facilitate the transfer of further funds for legal costs. The orders also set out detailed directions for obtaining updated valuations of various properties, agreeing on the value of real estate in the United Kingdom, appointing a single expert valuer for UK and Country Q pension entitlements, and filing lay affidavits and expert reports. Furthermore, the parties were directed to file an agreed Balance Sheet and case outlines, and to provide written notices of their legal costs and estimated future costs. The husband was ordered to pay the costs of the single experts in the first instance, and both parties were required to make a genuine offer to settle within 14 days.