Nathan and Weston (No 2)

In *Nathan & Weston (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Weston (the applicant) to suspend or discharge an interim spousal maintenance order made in favour of Ms Nathan (the respondent). The dispute arose from the applicant's attempt to modify an existing order for weekly spousal maintenance, which had been in place since September 2018.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant the suspension or discharge of the interim spousal maintenance order, pursuant to section 90SI of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider the factors outlined in section 90SF of the Act and determine if there was "just cause" to alter the existing maintenance arrangement.

Justice Mead's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to demonstrate a change in circumstances that would justify suspending or discharging the order. The court noted that the applicant had made payments from capital and had access to significant funds, including a substantial sum paid as partial property settlement. The applicant's appeal against the final property and parenting orders, and the subsequent consent orders staying those final orders, did not, in themselves, constitute grounds to discharge the interim spousal maintenance order. The court found that the applicant had not met the threshold required by section 90SI to enliven its jurisdiction to modify the order.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application to suspend or discharge the spousal maintenance order. The applicant was ordered to pay all arrears of spousal maintenance due by 26 April 2021 and to continue complying with the existing order thereafter, subject to further order. The application and response thereto were otherwise dismissed, with the question of costs to be determined.