Mehta & Crimmins

In the matter of *Mehta & Crimmins*, heard by Judge Myers in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the wife, Ms Mehta, sought spousal maintenance from the husband, Mr Crimmins. This application followed a previous, dismissed application for spousal maintenance made by Ms Mehta at the time final property orders were made in their divorce proceedings. The marriage was of short duration and there were no children of the relationship. Ms Mehta's current application included a claim for maintenance to cover the costs of obtaining a law degree.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the doctrine of *res judicata* applied to Ms Mehta's current spousal maintenance application, and consequently, whether the proceedings should be permanently stayed. The Court was required to determine if the prior dismissal of the spousal maintenance application, by consent, at the time of the final property orders, precluded Ms Mehta from bringing a fresh application for spousal maintenance.

Judge Myers reasoned that the prior consent dismissal of the spousal maintenance application, made in conjunction with the final property orders, operated as an estoppel *per rem judicatam*. The Court found that the parties had reached a final resolution of all financial matters between them, including spousal maintenance, as evidenced by the consent orders. To allow a fresh application for spousal maintenance would undermine the finality of the previous orders and the principle of *res judicata*.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the proceedings between Ms Mehta and Mr Crimmins, file number PAC6104/2017, be permanently stayed.