Judd & Treasure

In the Family Court of Australia, Hannam J considered an application by the wife for spousal maintenance and an order for sole occupation of the former matrimonial home, as well as an application for litigation costs. The wife sought periodic and lump sum spousal maintenance, asserting her inability to work due to significant health difficulties and the primary care responsibilities for the parties' autistic children, rendering her unable to adequately support herself. She highlighted the husband's access to substantial assets and financial resources, noting that her stated expenses were not extravagant while some of the husband's were. The wife also sought an order for the husband to vacate the former matrimonial home so she and the children could reside there, though they were currently adequately housed in a separate dwelling on the property.

The court was required to determine whether to grant periodic and lump sum spousal maintenance, whether to order the husband to pay the wife's litigation costs, and whether to grant the wife sole occupation of the former matrimonial home. The wife's inability to adequately support herself and her lack of income, contrasted with the husband's significant financial capacity, were central to the maintenance and costs applications. The adequacy of the wife and children's current accommodation was the key issue regarding the sole occupation claim.

Regarding spousal maintenance, the court found in favour of the wife, ordering the husband to pay $1,200 per week in periodic maintenance. The court also ordered the husband to pay $60,000 as a lump sum for the wife's litigation costs, and further ordered that he pay "dollar for dollar" any legal costs and expenses he incurred in the proceedings, excluding joint expert fees and the first $60,000 of his own legal costs. This costs order was deemed necessary to "level the playing field" given the disparity in financial resources. However, the wife's application for sole occupation of the former matrimonial home was dismissed, as the court found her current accommodation with the children to be adequate.