PETERS & JENSEN

In *Peters & Jensen*, heard by Faulks DCJ, the applicant sought an interim property settlement to fund his litigation. Both parties derived income from either a pension or investments. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the court's jurisdiction to order an interim property settlement was limited to situations where funds were required to cover litigation costs, and if so, whether specific litigation costs needed to be identified. The respondent argued they lacked immediately available funds to satisfy the applicant's request, and that the amount sought was less than a previously offered final settlement. The respondent also contended that any costs incurred due to a premature withdrawal of investments to meet the interim settlement should be borne by the applicant.

The court was required to determine whether the jurisdiction to order interim property settlements extended to funding litigation, and if so, the extent to which specific costs needed to be identified. Furthermore, the court had to consider the implications of requiring the respondent to prematurely withdraw investments and whether associated costs should be borne by the applicant, as well as the question of costs for the application itself.

Faulks DCJ reasoned that the jurisdiction to order interim property settlements was not confined solely to funding litigation, but could be exercised where it was just and equitable to do so, considering the circumstances of the parties. The court found that the applicant's request for $300,000 was a reasonable sum to be paid by way of interim property settlement. The court also determined that the costs associated with the respondent's premature withdrawal of investments to meet this interim payment should be agreed upon by the parties' solicitors and would reduce the net sum payable to the applicant, without impacting the final property division. The court refused the second order sought by the applicant and ordered that each party bear their own costs of the application.