MCGUIRE & MCGUIRE

In *McGuire & McGuire*, the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the Husband for an order for the sale of the former matrimonial home, for litigation funding, and for a partial property distribution. The Wife sought periodic and lump sum spousal maintenance. The central dispute revolved around the Husband's alleged inadequate financial disclosure, particularly concerning a significant bonus payment.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the Husband's applications, which were largely predicated on his assertion that the parties could not sustain the mortgage on the former matrimonial home. Additionally, the court had to assess the Wife's eligibility for spousal maintenance, considering her ability to support herself adequately, her reasonable needs, and the Husband's capacity to meet such an order, all within the framework of sections 72 and 75 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also considered the legal principles governing interim property distributions and litigation funding orders.

McClelland J dismissed the Husband's application for the sale of the former matrimonial home, finding that his failure to make full and frank disclosure regarding a $100,000 bonus payment was a significant omission, particularly as it impacted the assessment of the parties' financial positions and their ability to meet mortgage commitments. The court also dismissed the Husband's application for litigation funding, as the necessary requirements under section 117(2A) of the Act were not satisfied due to insufficient information. Similarly, the Husband's application for a partial property distribution was refused, as he failed to establish that such an order was in the interests of justice. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court found that the Wife was unable to adequately support herself, given her income, expenses, and the need to meet mortgage obligations. The Husband was found to have the capacity to pay, particularly given his undisclosed bonus.

Consequently, the court ordered the Husband to pay periodic spousal maintenance to the Wife and a lump sum to cover arrears on the mortgage for the former matrimonial home. The Husband's applications for the sale of the property, litigation funding, and a partial property distribution were dismissed. The application for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home was also dismissed, as the Husband had voluntarily vacated the property and no evidence justified such an order.