Malloy and Ors & Stopford Malloy

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal against spousal maintenance orders in a family law matter. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia, with the appeal and cross-appeal being heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the primary judge erred in finding that there was no change of circumstances sufficient to justify a variation of the spousal maintenance orders. The court also considered whether the primary judge was correct in finding that there were arrears of spousal maintenance such that the application for enforcement was able to be brought, and whether the appointment of receivers and managers to effect the enforcement of spousal maintenance was appropriate.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in finding that there was no change of circumstances sufficient to justify a variation of the spousal maintenance orders, and that there were arrears of spousal maintenance such that the application for enforcement was able to be brought. However, the court found that the primary judge erred in the exercise of her discretion in finding that it was appropriate to appoint receivers and managers to effect the enforcement of spousal maintenance. The court also found that the applications for leave to appeal, leave to cross-appeal, and to adduce further evidence were all properly dismissed.

The court granted leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal in part, and set aside certain orders made by the primary judge. The court also ordered that the parties file written submissions on the question of costs, and set out a timetable for the filing and service of those submissions. The court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal, leave to cross-appeal, and to adduce further evidence. The court found that the further evidence sought to be adduced was controversial and did not buttress the findings of the primary judge. The court also found that the basis and purpose of adducing the further evidence was unclear, and its relevance to the appeal and cross-appeal was not apparent.