Maggio & Turner

In the matter of *Maggio & Turner*, Ms Turner was the applicant and Mr Maggio was the respondent before Hartnett J of the Family Court of Australia. The dispute concerned an interim application brought by the husband seeking to wind up the Maggio Trading Trust and sell the parties' shareholding interest in B Pty Ltd. The husband's stated purpose for this sale was to obtain finance to purchase a home prior to the finalisation of property proceedings, despite an existing shareholder's offer to purchase the interest at a discounted value.

The court was required to determine whether the circumstances warranted the granting of interim orders for the sale of the shareholding interest. This involved considering the husband's desire to acquire a new home and the wife's opposition to the proposed sale, as well as the implications of such a sale on the parties' financial position and the overall asset pool.

Hartnett J dismissed the husband's application, finding that there were insufficient grounds to grant interim orders for the sale of the shareholding interest. The court noted that the proposed sale, which was at a discounted valuation without evidence of how that valuation was reached or any adversarial valuation, would result in a significant loss of income for both parties, estimated between $415,000 and $420,000 annually. While the husband sought to purchase a home valued at approximately $2 million, the court observed that he had the capacity to meet repayments for such a purchase from his existing income stream, which was approximately $650,000 in the last financial year. Furthermore, the wife proposed an alternative solution of a joint loan secured against the former matrimonial home, which would avoid the substantial reduction in income and capital loss associated with the proposed sale. The court concluded that the husband had not demonstrated an urgent need for the sale, particularly given the significance of the shareholding interest to the parties' overall financial position and income generation.

The application in a case filed by the husband on 15 March 2021 was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.