MOSS & MOSS

Case [2015] FCCA 2237


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MOSS & MOSS [2015] FCCA 2237
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application for interim spousal maintenance – finding that wife not able to adequately support herself – finding that husband not reasonably able to maintain wife – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.72, 75(2), 77

In the marriage of Bevan & Bevan MD (1995) FLC 92-600

Bane & Bayley [2013] FCCA 1581
In the Marriage of Tim and PL Ashton (1982) 8 Fam LR 675
In the Marriage of Mitchell (1995) 120 FLR 292
In the Marriage of ELIADES (1980) 6 Fam LR 916
In the Marriage of DJ and LL Wilson (1989) 13 Fam LR 205
Drysdale & Drysdale [2011] FamCAFC 85
Stein CM  & Stein M (2000) FLC 93-004
In the marriage of Mitchell NJ & Mitchell AL (1995) FLC 92-601
In the marriage of Atwill AC & Atwill AS (1981) FLC 91-107
Plany & Geller [2014] FamCA 114

Applicant: MS MOSS
Respondent: MR MOSS
File Number: MLC 6004 of 2012
Judgment of: Judge Jones
Hearing dates: 15 July & 3 August 2015
Date of Last Submission: 3 August 2015
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 27 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Stavris
Solicitors for the Applicant: Anthonys Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Serra
Solicitors for the Respondent: Berger Kordos Lawyers

ORDERS

  1. The wife’s Application in a Case filed on 25 February 2014 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Moss & Moss is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 6004 of 2012

MS MOSS

Applicant

And

MR MOSS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This decision concerns an application by Ms Moss (“the wife”) for orders that Mr Moss (“the husband”) pay her interim spousal maintenance in the sum of $600 a week. This interim decision is made in the context of substantive property proceedings which are listed for final hearing on 28 April 2016.

  2. The husband seeks an order dismissing the wife’s application for interim spousal maintenance.

Background

  1. The wife is 50 years of age (born on (omitted) 1964) and presently is a full-time student working limited hours in a (employer omitted). The husband is 54 years of age (born (omitted) 1961) and works full time as a (occupation omitted).

  2. There are two children of the relationship:

    a)X born (omitted) 1997 (“X”) who is 18 years of age and is in year 11 at (omitted) Special School. X has special needs having been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder when he was around two and a half years old;

    b)Y born (omitted) 1999 (“Y”) who is 16 years of age and is in year 9 at (omitted) College.

    (Collectively “the children”)

  3. The parties married on (omitted) 1995 and separated on 7 March 2012. Final Parenting orders were made by consent on 2 December 2013 which provided for the children to spend time with the parents on a week about…

Continue reading MOSS & MOSS

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Moss and Moss [2015] FCCA 2237
Case
[2015] FCCA 2237
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Moss & Moss*, the wife sought to have her application dismissed. The specific nature of the application and the underlying dispute between the parties are not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that the wife was the applicant. The decision was made by Judge Jones.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife's application, filed on 25 February 2014, should be dismissed. The court was required to determine the merits of this application for dismissal.

Judge Jones ordered that the wife's application be dismissed. No further reasoning or legal principles applied are evident from the provided text.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The wife’s Application in a Case filed on 25 February 2014 be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.