Priddle and Priddle and Ors (No.2)

[2009] FMCAfam 876

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRIDDLE & PRIDDLE & ORS (No.2) [2009] FMCAfam 876

FAMILY LAW – Application to discharge interim order for spousal maintenance – whether just cause to discharge order – whether change of circumstances sufficient to decrease award of maintenance – what is proper and just.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.72; 74; 75(2); 83

Priddle & Priddle [2009] FMCAfam 258
Lutzke & Lutzke (1979) FLC 90-714
Bevan & Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600

Applicant: MS PRIDDLE

First Respondent: MR PRIDDLE

Second Respondents: MR P & MS P

File Number: ADC 312 of 2009

Judgment of: Brown FM

Hearing date: 10 August 2009

Date of Last Submission: 10 August 2009

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 19 August 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Berman

Solicitors for the Applicant: Norman Waterhouse Lawyers

Counsel for First Respondent: Mr McGinn

Solicitors for First Respondent: Camatta Lempens Pty Ltd

Counsel for Second Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors for Second Respondent: Robert Chrzaszcz & Associates

ORDERS

1. Orders 3, 4 and 5 of the orders of 25 March 2009 be discharged.

2. The wife is given liberty to relist the matter at short notice in the event that any piece of the parties’ real property is sold.

3. The matter be listed for final hearing for three (3) days on 15, 16 and 17 March 2010.

4. The matter be listed for trial directions on 7 December 2009 at 9:30am.

5. Liberty to apply.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Priddle & Priddle & Ors (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

ADC 312 of 2009

MS PRIDDLE

Applicant

And

MR PRIDDLE

First Respondent

MR P & MS P

Second Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These proceedings relate to an order for interim spousal maintenance which I made on 25 March 2009, pursuant to which Mr Priddle “the husband” was to pay maintenance and provide other financial support for Ms Priddle “the wife”.[1]

   [1] See Priddle & Priddle [2009]FMCAfam 258

2. Essentially, the orders provided that the husband would pay the following sums either to the wife or for her benefit:

   ·A weekly sum of $500;

   ·Lease and other expenses relating to a Lexus motor vehicle, which the wife retained;

   ·Mortgage payments and other outgoings in respect of a property situate at Property W;

   ·The sum necessary to ensure the wife maintained top level health insurance.

3. Concurrently with the making of these orders, an order was made allowing the wife to have the sole occupancy of the Property W property, which is the parties’ former matrimonial home. The wife occupies this property with the parties’ two children, who are aged sixteen and fourteen.

4. By his application filed on 30 April 2009, the husband seeks the modification of the spousal maintenance aspect of the order by a reduction of $500 to $150 per week, although more recently he has indicated that he wishes the amount reduced to nil.

5. He also seeks that…