Masoud and Masoud (No. 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered applications for interim property settlement and parenting orders between the husband and wife. The parties, married for approximately 16 years, had separated for a second and final time in April 2012, with three children of the relationship. The wife sought significant interim property settlement funds, spousal maintenance, and child support, while the husband sought a more limited interim property distribution, restraining orders against the wife concerning certain properties, and specific arrangements for child-related expenses and vehicle acquisition.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim property distribution, including the release of funds for legal costs and general expenses, and to address the wife's claim for repayment of a debt to her father. It also needed to consider the wife's application for interim spousal maintenance and the husband's application for restraining orders over specific properties. Furthermore, the court had to determine the quantum of interim child support and other expenses to be paid by the husband for the three children, and the wife's application for exclusive use of a motor vehicle.

Justice Fowler made several interim orders, including allowing the wife to draw $350,000 for legal costs and $200,000 for other expenses from a joint Commonwealth Bank account, with the characterisation of the latter sum to be determined at trial. The husband was also permitted to draw $350,000 for his legal costs from the same account. The court ordered the release of funds for the wife to purchase a motor vehicle up to $82,000, with the husband to cover ongoing expenses excluding petrol and costs arising from the wife's negligence. The husband was ordered to pay child support of $600 per week per child, in addition to school fees, private health insurance, agreed medical expenses, and agreed extra-curricular activities, with these payments to be credited against any administrative assessment. The wife's application for periodic spousal maintenance was dismissed. The wife was restrained from dealing with her interest in five specified properties unless she provided 28 days' written notice or obtained the husband's consent, and she was to consent to the husband lodging caveats over these properties. Finally, the husband was ordered to return the wife's jewellery in his possession within 30 days.