Porter and Porter (No 2)

In *Porter and Porter (No 2)*, the wife sought interim orders to freeze the proceeds of a property owned by the husband and his new partner, citing an error by the Commonwealth Bank concerning a loan. The husband applied for a stay of spousal maintenance and his obligations under a binding child support agreement due to his asserted dire financial circumstances, despite operating a business with a significant turnover.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's application to freeze property proceeds and whether to grant the husband's application to stay existing maintenance and child support obligations. A key issue was the bank's entitlement to refuse to discharge a mortgage in light of its earlier error, and the husband's ability to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant altering the existing maintenance and child support orders.

Justice Watts noted the wife did not join the Commonwealth Bank as a party and ultimately did not press her application to freeze the property proceeds. Regarding the husband's application, the court found the financial material presented to be voluminous, confusing, and contradictory, making it impossible to discern the corporate and business structures involved. Given these deficiencies and the wife's abandonment of her freezing application, the court determined it was not appropriate to alter the current spousal maintenance order or the husband's obligations under the binding child support agreement.

Consequently, the wife's application for orders 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 was dismissed, as was the husband's amended application in a case filed on 8 September 2017. The listing before Justice Loughnan on 28 November 2017 was vacated, and the matter was listed for mention before Justice Watts on 30 November 2017.