KRUSAROSKI & KRUSAROSKI

In the matter of *Krusaroski & Krusaroski*, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for an order that the husband provide security for the ongoing payment of spousal maintenance. The wife also sought orders regarding costs.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was necessary to set aside a fund to secure the wife's spousal maintenance. Additionally, the Court was required to determine the appropriate orders for costs, considering the conduct of the parties and their respective financial positions.

Rees J dismissed the wife's application for security for spousal maintenance, finding that she had not satisfied the Court that such security was necessary. However, the Court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of the application. This decision was based on the Court's finding that the husband's failure to pay spousal maintenance arrears and his delay in providing timely financial disclosure to a single expert had necessitated the wife's application. The Court also noted the husband's significantly superior financial position compared to the wife.

In addition to the costs order, the Court made several consent orders. These included the husband reimbursing the wife for specific expenses, requiring the husband's accountant to cooperate with valuers and complete tax returns and statutory accounts, and obliging the husband to comply with reasonable requests for information or documents from valuers. The husband was also ordered to provide details of asset and liability acquisitions or disposals since separation and to provide monthly particulars of sale or purchase transactions. Failure to comply with these disclosure orders would result in a stay of the husband's application for substantive financial relief, with the wife granted leave to proceed undefended.