Maitland & Fraley

In the matter of *Maitland & Fraley*, Ms Maitland (the applicant) sought interim spousal maintenance from Mr Fraley (the respondent). The respondent sought the dismissal of the application. The parties had cohabited from 2000, married in 2014, and separated in May 2017, with the applicant vacating the former matrimonial home in September 2017. The applicant contended she had not worked full-time since the birth of the parties' first child in 2005, and following a heart attack in September 2019, had been working part-time. The respondent disputed the applicant's assertions regarding her capacity for full-time employment.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the threshold test for interim spousal maintenance under section 72(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant was unable to support herself adequately, having regard to the relevant matters listed in section 75(2) of the Act. The court also needed to consider the evidence regarding the applicant's income, property, financial resources, and her physical and mental capacity for gainful employment.

Berman J applied the principles outlined in *Hall v Hall*, which established that a court considering an interim spousal maintenance application must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the threshold requirement in section 72(1) is met. This requires consideration of the relevant section 75(2) factors, including the income, property, financial resources, and capacity for gainful employment of each party. In this instance, the court found that the applicant had funds available to her, specifically a lump sum of $223,996 received as beneficiary of her late father's estate. Given these available funds, the court determined it was not necessary to consider the respondent's ability to pay.

Consequently, the applicant's application for interim spousal maintenance was dismissed.