Miller & Miller

In *Miller & Miller*, the husband applied to the Family Court of Australia for a review of interim spousal maintenance orders made by a Judicial Registrar in favour of the wife. The original order directed the husband to pay the wife $1,700 per week. The marriage had lasted approximately 20 years and produced two children, who were minors at the time of the proceedings. The wife also had two adult sons living in her household.

The primary legal issues before the court were to determine the wife's needs for spousal maintenance and the husband's capacity to pay, in accordance with sections 72 and 74 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). A preliminary issue arose concerning the wife's application for an adjournment, based on outstanding child support matters before another judge. The court dismissed this application, finding that the resolution of the child support issues was not essential to determining the spousal maintenance application, particularly given the husband's asserted considerable financial means. The court also considered the adequacy of the evidence presented by the wife regarding her expenses, particularly the lack of a clear dissection between her personal needs and those of the children and adult dependants.

Justice Watts applied the principles established in cases such as *Paradine*, *Mee & Ferguson*, and *Redman and Redman*, which emphasise the onus on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence of their needs. The court noted that while interim maintenance applications allow for a broader approach than final hearings, a distinction must still be maintained between spousal and child maintenance. After analysing the extensive affidavit material and the parties' financial statements, the court found that the wife's evidence regarding her expenses was not adequately particularised to distinguish her needs from those of the children and adult dependants. However, by making certain assumptions and drawing inferences from the available data, particularly by comparing the wife's expenditure with the husband's claimed personal expenses, the court determined the wife's need for spousal maintenance. The court also considered the husband's capacity to pay, inferring from the evidence that he had access to significant funds from his parents and associated corporations, despite his financial statements suggesting a negative disposable income.

Ultimately, the court varied the Judicial Registrar's order, reducing the weekly spousal maintenance payment from $1,700 to $1,550, pending further order. The court declined to backdate the order, thereby avoiding the creation of a significant debt for the wife. The court also reserved the determination of costs related to the husband's notice of discontinuance of the interim costs review application, pending the resolution of any costs application arising from the spousal maintenance decision.