Jenson & Jenson (No 2)
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1672
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Jenson & Jenson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 1672
File number(s): BRC 5906 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI Date of judgment: 5 December 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of Judicial Registrar’s decision – what are parties’ reasonable expenses – what is husband’s earning capacity – whether husband is required to exercise full earning capacity in circumstances where he has care of a child of the relationship – application allowed – interim spousal maintenance order made Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 256
Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 5.09(2), 14.07
Cases cited: Burton (1979) FLC 90-610
DLM v JLM (1998) 23 FamLR 396
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8
Keymen & Keymen [2020] FamCAFC 70
Lusby (1977) 30 FLR 180
Maroney & Maroney [2009] FamCAFC 45
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 61 Date of last submissions: 23 November 2022 Date of hearing: 21 November 2022 Place: Hobart Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Murphy Solicitor for the Applicant: Barry Nilsson Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Casey SC Solicitor for the Respondent: JR Burns Law ORDERS
BRC 5906 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS JENSON
Applicant
AND: MR JENSON
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:
5 December 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Orders made by the Senior Judicial Registrar on 17 October 2022 are discharged effective from the date of these orders.
The Court further orders, until further order:
2.The parties are to exercise all reasonable efforts that the mortgage from Bank B is placed in financial hardship such that the minimum possible repayments are payable.
3.From the date of this order until 1 March 2023, that the Husband pay by way of spousal maintenance for the Wife:
(a)The Wife’s vehicle insurance, car maintenance and registration, loan repayments for the Wife’s vehicle and private health insurance; and
(b)The sum of $1,500 per week on condition that the mortgage relating to the property at C Street, Town D is in financial hardship and repayments are suspended either in part or whole; and
4.From 1 March 2023 and until further order, that the Husband pay by way of spousal maintenance for the Wife:
(a)The Wife’s vehicle insurance, car maintenance and registration, loan repayments for the Wife’s vehicle and Private health insurance; and
(b)The sum of $1,000 per week on condition that the mortgage relating to the property at C Street, Town D is in financial hardship and repayments are suspended either in part or whole.
5.In the alternative to Orders 3 and 4, should the mortgage not be in financial hardship and repayments are not suspended in whole or part, the Husband is to pay by way of interim spousal maintenance until further order:
(a)The Wife’s vehicle insurance, car maintenance and registration, loan repayments for the Wife’s vehicle and Private health insurance; and
(b)The sum of $1,200 per week until 1 March 2023 and after 1 March 2023 the sum of $600 per week.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Jenson & Jenson (No 2) has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Taglieri
This Application for Review filed 2 November 2022 (“the Application”) concerns interim spousal maintenance orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar on 17 October 2022. The Application was filed by the Husband, who is the respondent to the substantive proceedings. It came before me for hearing on 21 November 2022 (“the review hearing”).
The Application invokes the Court’s powers under s 256 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (“the FCFCOA Act”) and the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) made under that act. The hearing of the Application is by way of hearing de novo.[1]
[1] Rule 14.07 of the Rules.
The Review Hearing
At the commencement of the hearing, I gave directions to ensure that the parties confined the evidence relied upon to that which was relevant to the scope of what was in dispute on the Application. The Wife had initially flagged making an application to adjourn the review hearing, but ultimately did not pursue that adjournment application. I directed that there would be no cross-examination in view of the usual custom and Rule.[2]
[2] Rule 5.09(2) of the Rules.
During the hearing, I also asked the parties to focus on the issue of the extent to which a party should be required to exercise pre-separation earning capacity after separation in circumstances where they spend time with a child/children in time that would otherwise have been spent at work. I asked for this focus because there appeared to be an important consideration about the extent to which the Husband should exercise earning capacity in priority to spending time with the parties’ child.
Neither counsel was able to refer me to the relevant authorities and principles relating to the issue raised, so I gave leave for them to file a short written submission directed to the issue and authorities relied upon. They have been received and considered.
By the Application, the Husband seeks orders as follows:
1.As and by way of spousal maintenance and pending further Order the husband shall pay the following as and when they fall due:
(a)The Bank B mortgage associated with the [C Street, Town D] property.
(b)The Brisbane City Council rates associated with the [C Street, Town D] property.
(c)The home and contents insurances associated with the [C Street, Town D] property.
(d)Garden and lawn mowing costs for the [C Street, Town D] property.
(e)The vehicle insurance, maintenance and registration costs associated with the [Motor Vehicle 1].
(f)The loan repayments associated with the [Motor Vehicle 1].
(g)The private health insurance policy presently held by the husband and benefiting the wife.
The Wife, who has the benefit of the existing interim spousal maintenance orders made on 17 October 2022, seeks variation of them. Such variation is sought from the date of judgment on the Application.
The positions adopted by the parties demonstrate that it is uncontentious and agreed that the Court has power to make interim spouse maintenance orders and ought to do so in this case as the wife had a need for support, but the parties disputed the nature of the orders that should be made.
The submissions or evidence before the Court also establish the following uncontentious facts:
(a)The parties separated on 1 November 2021;
(b)The parties have one child, now aged 2 years old;
(c)The Wife worked prior to the child being born, but not since as she has been his primary carer;
(d)The Husband has been self-employed since early 2019, doing consulting work;
(e)The mortgages with respect to the parties’ jointly-owned property and the investment property are under financial hardship terms, meaning the repayments are currently on hold or reduced;[3] and
(f)The parties consented to interim parenting orders on 1 September 2022, which provide that, during the 5-day work week, the child is to spend each Wednesday and each alternate Friday with the Husband.
[3] This was not clear from the evidence
Issues in dispute
The dispute between the parties, as established by submissions made at the commencement of the review hearing before me on 21 November 2022, is about:
(a)What terms of orders, in cash or kind by payment of the certain expenses, is adequate to meet the reasonable needs of support of the Wife;
(b)What capacity the Husband has to pay the same; and
(c)Whether the Husband’s earning capacity ought to be exercised in full to meet the Wife’s adequate needs for spousal maintenance.
The Wife’s case
The Wife only seeks variation of Order 1 made on 17 October 2022. She seeks substitution in the following terms from the date of this judgment:
1.That pursuant to section 72 of the Family Law Act 1975, the husband pay, or cause to be paid, spousal maintenance to the wife as follows:
(a)The insurance, registration, maintenance and loan repayment costs for the wife’s motor vehicle;
(b)The premiums for the wife’s health insurance policy;
(c)The sum of $800 per week for the wife’s rental apartment;
(d)For a period of six (6) months, or until the wife obtains employment, the sum of $1,005 per week for the wife’s weekly living expenses;
(e)After the passing of 6 (six) months or from when the wife obtains employment, the sum of $905 per week.
The Wife relied upon the following materials:
(a)Her Amended Financial Statement filed 18 November 2022;
(b)Her affidavit filed 18 November 2022;
(c)Her affidavit filed 20 May 2022 at [53] to [60], inclusive of annexure -4; and
(d)Her Case Outline filed 18 November 2022.
Counsel for the Wife made submissions in relation to the two-step test to be applied in spouse maintenance cases. First, she submitted that the evidence before the Court established that the Wife had a need for adequate support. Second, that the Husband had the capacity to meet that need for support. It was submitted that the Wife had been the primary carer of the child who is only two years of age, and this has impacted her earning capacity as she had been out of paid employment since the child was born.
Relying on statements in her affidavit and Case Outline both filed 18 November 2020, the Wife concedes that she had some capacity to earn, referring to it being two days per week[4] and providing income of $533 net per week.[5]
[4] Affidavit of the Wife filed 18 November 2022 at [12] and [28] to [30].
[5] Case outline filed 18 November 2022 at [18].
The Wife also deposes of attempts she has made to find employment since moving to Suburb E on 14 November 2022. I observe that this evidence is scarce and tends to suggest that her enquiries and attempts about working have commenced very recently.
Counsel for the Wife submitted that the Wife now seeks different amounts of interim spousal maintenance for the next six months and thereafter, on the basis that the Wife’s absence from the workforce for about two years means she will require time to re-enter the workforce and be able to find employment and to exercise her earning capacity.
Referring to the Wife’s expenses set out in her Amended Financial Statement, it was submitted that there was evidence of the following “reasonable expenses”:
·Rent of $800 per week;
·Credit card repayments of $7 per week; and
·Other expenses as particularised in Part N of the Financial Statement of $1,437 per week.
In total, it is submitted that the sum of $2,260 per week represents the value of the necessary and reasonable expenses to support the Wife, but the expenses referred to at [17] total slightly less than that figure at $2,244.
Counsel for the Wife referred to the Husband’s earning capacity and referred the Court to the Wife’s affidavit filed 20 May 2022 at [53] to [60]. She submitted that the invoices issued by the Husband for consultancy work between April 2021 and March 2022 showed total income of $384,345.95.[6]
[6] Affidavit of the Wife filed 20 May 2022 at Annexure -4.
The Wife disputes the veracity of the claim that the Husband had genuinely needed to reduce his hours of work and travel during the week to facilitate spending time with the child pursuant to consent parenting orders made on 1 September 2022. Counsel for the Wife made submissions which, at their highest, amounted to asserting that the Husband and his brother had deliberately conspired to reduce the income payable to the Husband for his services as a self-employed professional engaged by F Pty Ltd (“the business”), the entity operated by his brother.[7]
[7] Case Outline of the Wife filed 18 November 2022 at [8] of Part D.
It was submitted that the arrangement, which had been the subject of the Husband’s evidence and was not supported by evidence from his brother, the Court should not accept that the Husband’s earning capacity had nearly halved from what it had been previously.
Counsel for the Wife strongly emphasised that the failure to disclose evidence of the agreement between the business and the Husband, and absence of an affidavit from the brother about these issues, had been the subject of the cross examination and submissions before the Senior Judicial Registrar, yet the Husband still had not rectified the absence of evidence from the brother. It appears that this submission was relying on principles in Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8, but this was not directly articulated as such.
Counsel for the Wife submitted that the Court should find that the Husband’s earning capacity is $481,000 per annum based on a daily rate of income of $1,782 for a five-day week, being $9,250 per week gross. It was also submitted that after payment of tax liability, asserted to be $3,598 weekly, and the Husband’s living expenses of $3,611 (excluding rent and mowing and the higher mortgage repayments), the Husband had a surplus of income over expenses of $2,041. Accordingly, it was claimed that this sum was available to pay spousal maintenance in the terms sought by her. I note, however, that this submission appears to be based on a calculation error because $1,782 for five days a week totals $8,910 per week, not the $9,250 submitted.
I observed that there did not appear to be any evidence about taxation payable on the income asserted at $481,000 gross per annum, and this was conceded.
The Husband’s case
The Husband relied upon the following materials and his written Case Outline filed 18 November 2022:
(a)Application for Review filed 2 November 2022;
(b)His affidavit filed 15 November 2022;
(c)His Amended Financial Statement filed 22 August 2022.
In summary, the Husband contends that the spousal maintenance orders the made by the Senior Judicial Registrar are excessive and do not properly take into account his reduced income arising because of the new terms of engagement as a consultant.
The Husband says that the new terms of engagement were necessarily negotiated because of the interim parenting orders that were made on 1 September 2022, which provide for the child to spend three days per fortnight with him.
The Husband also contends that the calculations made by the Wife for the purposes of identifying his earning capacity are flawed in that they provide for him to work 52 weeks of the year and assume a daily rate of remuneration which he does not actually receive.
Furthermore, the Husband contends that the Wife’s claimed reasonable weekly expenses in some ways are excessive and include discretionary spending. During submissions by Counsel for the Husband, this contention was clarified and issue was taken with the sums in Part N of the Wife’s Amended Financial Statement relating to clothing and shoes, entertainment and hobbies, and hairdressing and toiletries.
The Husband contends in summary that he does not have capacity to pay spousal maintenance as claimed by the Wife or as ordered on 17 October 2022 by the Senior Judicial Registrar. He says that he does not have surplus income to the extent claimed by the Wife after paying agreed expenses for the benefit of the Wife and his own reasonable and necessary expenses identified in Part G and N of his Amended Financial Statement.
Counsel for the Husband submitted that, based on the Husband’s new work arrangements, his income is only $900 per day and he works on average 13.27 days per month as shown in the time records at Annexure 1 to the Husband’s affidavit filed 15 November 2022 meaning that his gross income per week on average is $3,946.
Again, there was no evidence put before the Court of the tax payable on the gross income referred to at [31].
Addressing the submission that the Wife reasonably requires six months to re-enter the workforce, the Husband contends that this is excessive. Relying on evidence from the Wife that the child is able to attend childcare and that the Husband provides care also, the Husband asserts that the Wife is able to return to full-time employment immediately.
Evaluation
No issue was taken with the submission that there was a two-staged test which applies. Strictly speaking, I consider this submission conflates the required stages of enquiry by the court. In particular, I propose to adopt the approach referred to by the Full Court of the Family Court in Keymen & Keymen [2020] FamCAFC 70 at [33].
The expenses the Husband agrees to pay by way of spousal maintenance as identified in his Amended Financial Statement, which has not been challenged or contradicted, totals about $296 per week, doing the best I can on the evidence the parties put before the Court. This is made up of:
(a)The Wife’s vehicle insurance of $36 per week[8] (if the sum disclosed is apportioned at 50/50 for the Motor Vehicle 2 and Motor Vehicle 1), car maintenance of $38 per week,[9] and car registration of $15 per week;[10]
(b)Loan repayments for the Wife’s vehicle of $161 per week[11] (if the sum disclosed is apportioned at 50/50 for the Motor Vehicle 2 and Motor Vehicle 1);
(c)Private health insurance benefiting the Wife of $46 per week (if the sum disclosed is apportioned one third between all family members covered by the policy).[12]
[8] Amended Financial Statement of the Husband filed 22 August 2022 at [26].
[9] Amended Financial Statement of the Wife filed 18 November 2022 at Part N.
[10] Amended Financial Statement of the Husband filed 22 August 2022 at [27].
[11] Amended Financial Statement of the Husband filed 22 August 2022 at [29].
[12] Amended Financial Statement of the Husband filed 22 August 2022 at [26].
The above corresponds with the orders sought by the Wife in part, but she also seeks payment of the additional sums referred to at [17], being $2,244 per week.
The parties’ reasonable and necessary expenses?
If the Husband pays the increased mortgage repayment from 21 November 2022 and is required to continue to pay rent for accommodation, his total expenses would be $4,396.65, made up of:
·Weekly Part N expenses adjusted for discretionary spending from $1,039 to $850;[13]
·Rent of $820 per week, disputed by the Wife as she has now vacated the former matrimonial home;
·Mortgage repayments of $998.65 per week;[14] and
·Other Part G expenses, not otherwise included above and including $296 paid for the benefit of the Wife,[15] of $1,678 per week.
[13] Amended Financial Statement of the Husband filed 22 August 2022 at Part N.
[14] Affidavit of the Husband filed 15 November 2022 at [25], which updates the Amended Financial Statement of the Husband filed 22 August 2022 at Part G.
[15] At [34] of these reasons.
The Husband has no good reason to be paying $820 per week in rent for his own accommodation. The former matrimonial home is vacant and he can occupy it. His Part N expenses also include discretionary spending and his reasonable and necessary expenses are more probably about $3,500 inclusive of the higher mortgage repayment rather than the sum identified at [37].
The Wife pays $800 per week rent and says her expenses other than those which the Husband agrees to pay are $1,437 per week. The Husband took issue with some expenses in Part N of the Wife’s Amended Financial Statement. I consider that the sums claimed for clothing and shoes, entertainment and hobbies, and hairdressing and toiletries and holidays are in part discretionary.
The Wife’s reasonable and necessary expenses over those the Husband has agreed to pay are more likely to be in the order of $1,700 per week inclusive of rent.
The Husband’s earning capacity
I do not accept that the Husband’s past or current income or earning capacity is $481,000 gross per annum for the following reasons:
·First, he has not earned this sum by way of gross taxable income in his consultancy work, and the Notice of Assessment for the financial year immediately before separation evidences a gross income of $384,068;
·Second, the sum of $481,000 does not allow for the costs of conducting his consultancy. It is a measure of gross revenue, not earnings; and
·Third, it assumes that every week of the year is worked at five days per week, which does not appear to be a reliable noting that self-employed persons can be expected to have periods of sickness and leave for which they probably are not remunerated.
I find that the most reliable and objective evidence of the Husband’s earning capacity, as opposed to that which he has been exercising, is $232,644 net per annum, being the sum evidenced by the Notice of Assessment for the year ending 30 June 2021.
There is a dispute about the degree to which the Husband is currently able to exercise his earning capacity. The Wife disputes that the Husband has been required to reduce his work hours and in turn his earning capacity. She disputes that the Husband has needed to travel less for his employment because of the care arrangements for the child.
I consider it likely that the Husband has reduced his hours of work to accommodate spending time with the child for the following reasons:
(a)There is an order that provides that the child will spend every Wednesday and alternate Fridays with the Husband and the parties agree that time has been occurring in accordance with that order;
(b)The travel records in evidence corroborate the Husband’s evidence that he avoids travelling on Wednesdays and in addition they show that:
(i)In the 6 months prior to the order he made about 29 trips; but
(ii)After the order was made he made about 12 trips to the period ending May 2022;
(c)Analysing the dates shown as travel in and out of the employer worksites in the travel records, those dates were commonly occurring on Wednesdays prior to the date of separation/parenting orders, but less commonly after the orders were made;
(d)The Husband has stated that he has come to an alternate working routine with his brother which involves his brother doing more of the travel required to undertake and fulfil the contract between the business and Company G, and although this is disputed it is corroborated by the travel record. No alternative interpretation of it has been offered or demonstrated.
My review of the travel records in evidence suggest that in the 12 months before separation the average trips per month undertaken by the Husband for work was about 4.5. In the period after separation, the records reveal a drop to about an average of 1.2 trips per month.
DETERMINATION
The Husband agrees to pay the amounts referred to at [35][16] and says that after paying his own reasonable and necessary expenses, and increased mortgage repayments, he cannot afford to pay the sum ordered by the Senior Judicial Registrar as interim spousal maintenance.
[16] $351.
I accept that the Husband’s earning capacity has been reduced somewhat, but I also infer from the unique relationship he has with his brother that he likely has opportunity to be remunerated more favourably than $900 per day as expectations of him will tend to be more flexible and he is still undertaking some travel for the contract role.
Although I have concluded that travel has reduced, I consider it has likely reduced below that which is necessary for the Husband to facilitate compliance with the parenting orders. The orders require that he is present in Brisbane/Region H for three days a fortnight which represents about one third of usual work time in any given fortnight.
This reduction of travel is disproportionate to the agreed 50 per cent reduction in daily remuneration the Husband and brother have apparently agreed. Further, the basis upon which the rate of $900 was agreed, being “standard industry rate for my role based in Brisbane”[17] appears to be for a completely Brisbane office-based role, not one that allows travel for seven weekdays in a fortnight.
[17] Affidavit of the Husband filed 15 November 2022 at [14].
Accordingly, I consider that at this interim stage and before the evidence is fully tested, the most objective and fair basis for measuring the Husband’s earning capacity is to adopt the net income in the financial year immediately before separation and adjust it for the somewhat changed role in which he consults.
I have concluded that the Husband plainly has capacity to earn $232,644.00 net per annum, which averages to $4,474 net per week, and this amount adopts the tax identified in the Notice of Assessment and by inference allows leave or sickness because it is based on actual historical income received.
Noting the general principles and authorities[18] to which I was referred which are not directly applicable on the facts, it is reasonable and in the interests of the child that the Husband not be required to work on days that he is ordered to spend time with the child. As such, for the purpose of interim spouse maintenance, the figure referred to at [51] is adjusted to $3,900 per week net to recognise that he is not required to exercise demonstrated earning capacity.
[18] DLM v JLM (1998) 23 FamLR 396; Lusby (1977) 30 FLR 180; Burton (1979) FLC 90-610.
In making the adjustment referred to above, I have not ignored that the Husband’s evidence is that he is only paid $900 per day. That evidence has not been tested and for the reasons at [47] to [51] inclusive I do not presently accept it to be an accurate measure of his earning capacity.
The Wife has conceded she has some capacity to earn, but says she needs six months to re-enter the workforce. In the circumstances both parties have deposed to,[19] it seems quite possible that the Wife will find at least part-time employment within three months.
[19] Affidavit of the Wife filed 18 November 2022 at [28] to [30]; Case Outline of the Husband filed 18 November 2022 at [12] of Part D.
After paying expenses of $3,500 as identified at [38] of these reasons from the Husband’s assessed earning capacity referred to at [52], the approximate surplus of $400 per week.
I was told that it was agreed that the Husband had complied with the orders made on 17 October 2022 by meeting the payments from savings and I infer, continuing to pay the mortgage. Counsel for the Husband asserted the balance savings would be required to meet tax liabilities, but no evidence was put before the court about what they may be. In view of his reduced exercise of earning capacity, his tax liability is likely to be less than that which it was in the 2021 financial year. He still has savings,[20] some of which is available for payment of interim spouse maintenance.
[20] Bank B Bank Statement annexed to Husband’s affidavit filed 15 November 2022 at Annexure 3; Amended Financial Statement of the Husband filed 22 August 2022.
The Wife will earn an income in the relatively near future and I consider that her reasonable and necessary expenses are in the approximate range of $1,700 per week in addition to what the Husband agrees to pay. It is therefore apparent that the Husband’s assessed surplus income alone will not meet her reasonable needs either before or after she finds employment unless she is able to earn around $1,300 per week net.
As canvassed during the hearing, it is quite conceivable that the mortgage repayments can continue to be treated under hardship or completely put on hold while the parties finalise these proceedings. On the assumption that this occurs, the Husband will have a surplus of somewhere between around $420[21] to $1,300.[22]
[21] Surplus at [55] of these reasons plus value of lower mortgage repayment.
[22] Surplus at [55] of these reasons and no mortgage repayment.
The Husband would appear to have limited capacity to pay spouse maintenance from earnings if he continues to pay the mortgage but much greater capacity if he is not so required. Further, there is capacity to pay spousal maintenance from the savings in the Husband’s business account and there is established authority that “capacity to pay” is not confined to income or earnings.[23]
[23] Maroney & Maroney [2009] FamCAFC 45 at [56].
Exercising my discretion as required according to the authorities to which I have referred and the established principles applicable to ss 74 and 75 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), I determine that the following orders should be made.
The Court orders that:
(1)the Orders made by the Senior Judicial Registrar on 17 October 2022 are discharged effective from the date of these orders.
The Court further orders, until further order:
(2)The parties are to exercise all reasonable efforts for that the mortgage from Bank B is placed in financial hardship such that the minimum possible repayments are payable.
(3)From the date of this order until 1 March 2023, that the Husband pay by way of spousal maintenance for the Wife:
(a)The Wife’s vehicle insurance, car maintenance and registration, loan repayments for the Wife’s vehicle and private health insurance; and
(b)The sum of $1,500 per week on condition that the mortgage relating to the property at C Street, Town D is in financial hardship and repayments are suspended either in part or whole; and
(4)From 1 March 2023 and until further order, that the Husband pay by way of spousal maintenance for the Wife:
(a)The Wife’s vehicle insurance, car maintenance and registration, loan repayments for the Wife’s vehicle and Private health insurance; and
(b)The sum of $1,000 per week on condition that the mortgage relating to the property at C Street, Town D is in financial hardship and repayments are suspended either in part or whole.
(5)In the alternative to Orders 3 and 4, should the mortgage not be in financial hardship and repayments are not suspended in whole or part, the Husband is to pay by way of interim spousal maintenance until further order:
(a)The Wife’s vehicle insurance, car maintenance and registration, loan repayments for the Wife’s vehicle and Private health insurance; and
(b)The sum of $1,200 per week until 1 March 2023 and after 1 March 2023 the sum of $600 per week.
It is self-evident that the payments due under this judgment will not meet all the wife’s needed periodic expenses, but I have taken into account that she has already received the sum of $10,000 pursuant to the orders of the Senior Judicial Registrar made on 17 October 2022.
I certify that the preceding sixty-one (61) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Taglieri. Associate:
Dated: 5 December 2022
3
0