HATTLEY & HATTLEY

In *Hattley & Hattley*, the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the husband for interim property settlement and spousal maintenance. The wife initially sought dismissal of the husband's application but later proposed orders for the sale of a jointly owned property, the repayment of mortgages, and the distribution of the net proceeds. The husband, born in 1971, and the wife, born in 1969, had been married for over 20 years and separated in November 2011, with three children of the marriage.

The court was required to determine whether to make interim orders for property settlement and spousal maintenance, and if so, what those orders should be. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles for making interim property orders, including whether such orders were in the interests of justice and reversible, and whether the wife had sufficient income to meet the husband's claim for periodic spousal maintenance. The court also had to assess the parties' respective assets and liabilities, including significant inherited assets held by the wife.

Applying the principles from *Strahan & Strahan*, the court found that an interim property order was justified due to the husband's inability to meet litigation costs and the need to address the parties' financial positions. The court determined that the wife's proposed order for the sale of the jointly owned property at B Street, Suburb C, with the net proceeds to be paid to the husband after discharging the mortgages, was a just and equitable order in the circumstances. This order was considered reversible in the sense that an appropriate adjustment could be made at the final hearing, and it would provide the husband with funds and remove the burden of the mortgages. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court was not satisfied that the wife had sufficient income available to meet the husband's periodic maintenance claims, especially as the proposed property settlement would resolve the mortgage repayment issue.

Consequently, the court made orders for the sale of the property at B Street, Suburb C, conditional upon the husband signifying his written consent within seven days. The proceeds were to be disbursed to cover selling costs, adjustments, and the discharge of specified mortgages, with the balance to be paid to the husband. The court also noted that if the interim property order took effect, the husband's claim for spousal maintenance would be satisfied. The matter was listed for a telephone mention.