REDMAN & HIRST

[2016] FamCA 1183

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REDMAN & HIRST [2016] FamCA 1183

FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – whether the wife is unable to reasonably maintain herself – where the wife has been out of the open employment market since 1993 – where wife has no formal qualifications – where the wife has unsuccessfully applied for numerous jobs post-separation – where the wife is unable to reasonably maintain herself – the extent to which the husband is reasonably able to maintain the wife – orders made.

FAMILY LAW – DISCLOSURE – where orders have previously been made in relation to disclosure - where there is no persuasive evidence that any party has failed to comply with their ongoing obligation of disclosure – where no orders are made in relation to disclosure.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – where the wife sought various injunctions against the husband in relation to his dealings with property – where the proposed injunctions are exceedingly wide – where, if made, the injunctions would impose unjustified restrictions upon the husband in his operation of the parties’ businesses.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600
DJM and JLM (1998) FLC 92-816
Mullen and  De Bry  (2006) FLC 93-293
Redman and Redman (1987) FLC 91-805
Stein and Stein (2000) FLC 93-004
Waugh and Waugh (2000) FLC 93-052

APPLICANT: Ms Redman

RESPONDENT: Mr Hirst

FILE NUMBER: BRC 582 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 29 April 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Carew J

HEARING DATE: 26 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. Linklater-Steele

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Harrington Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms. Minnery

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Saunders & Co

Orders

By consent

1. That until further order, the wife have sole right to occupy the matrimonial home to the exclusion of the husband.

2. That by way of adult child maintenance for Ms B born in 1996, the husband:

   (a)       pay to a nominated bank account the sum of $185 per week, the first payment to be made on Friday, 29 April 2016 and weekly thereafter;

   (b)       pending further order, the husband to continue to cause the car (driven by Ms B) to be insured, registered and maintained;

   (c)       continue to allow Ms B full use in possession of the computer in her possession.

It is further ordered until further order

1. That the provision of adult child maintenance as contained in paragraph (2) herein is by way of interim order.

2. That by way of spouse maintenance the husband;

   (a)Pay to the wife the sum of $3,568 per month to date from 26 April 2016 with the 1^st payment to be made on 3 May 2016 and every four weeks thereafter;

   (b)Pay the mortgage payments for the former matrimonial home as and when they fall due;

   (c)Pay the following expenses:

   (i)Rates and building insurance on the former matrimonial home;

   (ii)The wife’s car lease payments, insurance, registration and maintenance.

3. That the husband disclose to the wife the monthly bank statements of the husband personally as well as C Pty Ltd; D Pty Ltd and E Pty Ltd within seven days of receipt of same.

4. That the husband disclose to the wife the business activity statements and quarterly management accounts of C Pty Ltd, D Pty Ltd and E Pty Ltd within seven days of lodgement.

5. That the wife’s application for a payment to her of $60,000 as contained in paragraph 6 of Initiating Application filed 25 January 2016 (interim orders sought) is adjourned to 18 May 2016.

6. That all remaining applications for interim orders (other than parenting issues) be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hirst & Redman has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 582 of 2016

Ms Redman

Applicant

And

Mr Hirst

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The parties to this dispute are Ms Redman (“the wife”) and Mr Hirst (“the husband”).

2. The application before me today concerns interim spouse maintenance, interim adult child maintenance, sole use and occupation of the former matrimonial home, injunctions and miscellaneous matters. Agreement has been reached in relation to adult child maintenance and sole use of the former matrimonial home.

3. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the wife was granted leave to amend the interim orders sought by substituting the orders sought in the Application filed 25 January 2016 (save that paragraph 6 thereof is to be adjourned by consent to the next court date) with the interim orders set out in Exhibit 1(save that subparagraph 4(c) in exhibit 1 was not pressed and is not included below). The interim orders sought by her now, are as follows:

   1)That until further order, the wife have the sole right to occupy the matrimonial home to the exclusion of the husband.

   2)That by way of adult child maintenance for [Ms B] born … 1996, the Husband:

   a)pay to a nominated bank account the sum of $185 per week, the 1^st payment to be made on Friday 29 April [2016] and weekly thereafter;

   b)pending further order, the husband to continue to cause the car [driven by Ms B] to be insured, registered and maintained;

   d)continue to allow [Ms B] full use and possession of the computer in her possession.

   3)That by way of spouse maintenance, the Husband:

   a)pay to the wife the sum of $4500 per month with the 1st payment to be made on 29 April 2016 and every four weeks thereafter;

   b)pay the mortgage payments for the matrimonial home as and when they fall due;

   c)pay the following expenses:

   (i)rates;

   (ii)the wife’s car lease payments, insurance, registration and maintenance.

   4)That within 14 days the Husband provide disclosure of the following documents:

   a)the commission invoices for the period 1.7.2015 to present and thereafter on a monthly basis before the seventh of each month;

   b)the list of properties comprising the rent roll as at the current date with any additions or deletions to be notified on a monthly basis before the 7th of each month;

   c)registration papers for all motor vehicles and motor bikes held by the Husband and all entities controlled by the Husband;

   5)That the wife continue to be able to direct any and all enquiries and request any and all documents as to the operation of the parties’ businesses from the business bookkeeper and accountant.

   6)That the Husband and wife do all things and sign all documents as may be required to restore the wife’s ability to view all online bank accounts conducted by the husband and the parties’ companies.

   7)That the husband shall not borrow, encumber or increase any debt in the name of any business, company or trust conducted by the parties or himself personally without the prior written consent of the wife.

   8)That the husband shall not dispose of in any manner or cease to trade any of the businesses, or companies conducted by himself or the parties without first providing notice to the wife.

4. At the commencement of the hearing I was informed by counsel that agreement had been reached in relation to paragraphs 1 and 2 above. The balance of the application is the subject of dispute.

5. By his response filed on 29 February 2016, the husband seeks the following relevant interim orders (remaining matters either already the subject of consent orders or not pressed today) :

   1)That the husband pay the following expenses up to and including 30 August 2016 as and when they fall due:

   a)the mortgage on the former matrimonial home;

   b)the rates and water on the former matrimonial home;

   c)the motor vehicle lease payments, servicing, registration and insurance for the [motor vehicle] leased by [C] Pty Ltd, in the possession of the wife;

   d)$5,821.45 to the Australian Taxation Office for the wife’s 2015 income tax liability within seven days of the wife providing to the husband, a copy of the notice of assessment.

   2)That the husband disclose to the wife the monthly bank statements of the husband personally as well as [C] Pty Ltd; [D] Pty Ltd and [E] Pty Ltd within seven days of receipt of same.

   3)That the husband disclose to the wife the business activity statements and quarterly management accounts of [C] Pty Ltd, [D] Pty Ltd and [E] Pty Ltd within seven days of lodgement.

Relevant Background

1. The husband and wife were married in 1992 and separated on or about 11 September 2015. They have two children, namely, Ms B born in 1996 and F born in 2007. Ms B is a full-time university student and works casually when she is able to obtain employment. Both children live with the wife.

2. The wife was born in 1967 and the husband was born in 1967.

3. During the marriage the parties operated a number of businesses through various entities of which the husband is sole director and both parties, or related entities, are shareholders. No other party owns any shares in the entities. The entities through which the businesses are conducted are as follows:

   1)G Pty Ltd;

   2)D Pty Ltd;

   3)C Pty Ltd;

   4)E Pty Ltd;

   5)H Pty Ltd.

4. The husband also has an interest in two investment units that were purchased in partnership with third parties. Those investments are negatively geared.

5. The main source of income for the family has been and remains a property management business or as referred to during the hearing, a ‘rent roll’ operated by D Pty Ltd.

6. Until 1993 the wife was employed at Company Q. Since then the wife contends that she worked in the D business until late in her pregnancy with the child F in 2007. The wife resumed working in the businesses in 2009 and her duties included paying invoices and helping the bookkeeper. She contends that she regularly attended at the office to check that the office was running smoothly, review the bookwork with the bookkeeper and attend to matters as needed. She also attended to and tracked the online listings and ensured that they were uploaded correctly. She has no formal qualifications other than a real estate licence recently acquired but no experience in real estate sales and no experience in the open employment market since 1993. The husband contends that the wife’s involvement in the businesses was more limited than claimed by her.

7. In June 2015 the husband was injured in a motorbike accident suffering an injury to his shoulder. This has not prevented him continuing to operate the various businesses, although it is suggested it has or may in the future limit his involvement to some extent, particularly in the operation of the motor bike rally business operated through C Pty Ltd. In January 2016 he contended that this business was no longer viable and that the two motor bikes owned by the business cost “$1,000 per month between them”. He contends that the value of the equipment would be about $30,000.

8. The wife currently has no source of income and she is not eligible for Centrelink payments, presumably because of her shareholdings. On 17 November 2015 the wife applied for a position with Company J, but was advised on 3 December 2015 that her application was unsuccessful. On 22 December 2015 she applied for a position with Company K. On 5 January 2016, she applied for a role at the L Hospital. On 14 January 2016 she applied for a position with Company M. On 1 February 2016 the wife submitted her resume to three further prospective employers. The wife has not been successful in obtaining any of the positions for which she has applied or expressed an interest.

9. The wife contends that F is not coping with the separation of her parents and that in the latter part of 2015 the school contacted the wife to advise that F was crying at school and was sad and unhappy. The wife arranged for F to see the school counsellor on a regular basis. The wife contends that subsequent to separation the husband would discuss the separation with F in terms that were not appropriate to her age. The wife further contends that F would return home from time with her father crying and clingy.

10. The wife contends that she wishes to be available to take F to school and pick up particularly whilst she is adjusting to the separation.

11. The income produced by the various businesses operated by the parties through their entities has been split between the husband and wife and in the 2015 financial year a taxable income of $99,570 was attributed to the wife and a taxable income of $84,248 was attributed to the husband.

12. The husband contends that the net income received by the operation of the various businesses cannot support the orders sought by the wife and that he in fact has a shortfall of income over expenditure of $538 per week, taking into account the payments and expenses which he has agreed to pay. These include a sum of $185 per week to Ms B and a recent assessment for child support in respect of F of $175 per week.

13. After separation the husband deposes to having purchased a jet ski for $9,900 when he discovered that the wife had removed money from the joint accounts. He remains in possession of this item. He told his daughter Ms B that he purchased the jet ski with the sale proceeds of “a property”. He also enjoyed a holiday to Asia after separation and he contends the wife enjoyed a holiday to Tasmania.

14. It is common ground that the husband made an offer to pay the wife $4,500 in December 2015. The precise terms and what that sum was to cover are in dispute.

15. As this is an interim application, the parties opted to proceed ‘on the papers’ and declined to cross-examine any witness. That was a sensible course given the time restriction on interim hearings provided for in Rule 5.10 and the fact that submissions took over two hours.

Spouse maintenance

1. Section 72 of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth)(“the Act”) provides that a party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party to the extent that the first mentioned party is reasonably able to do so, if and only if, that other party is unable to support herself adequately, whether by reason of having the care and control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years or by reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment or for any other an adequate reason, having regard to any relevant matter referred to in subsection 75(2).

2. Section 74 empowers the court to make such order as it considers proper for the provision of maintenance.

3. Section 75(2) lists a number of matters which are required, where relevant, to be taken into account in determining what order to make. Matters of particular relevance in this case include:

   1)Age and state of health of the parties;

   2)The income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment;

   3)Whether either party has the care or control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years;

   4)Commitments of each of the parties that are necessary to enable the party to support himself or herself;

   5)The responsibilities of either party to support any other person;

   6)A standard of living that in all the circumstances is reasonable;

   7)The extent to which the party whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other party;

   8)The duration of the marriage and the extent to which it has affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration;

   9)The need to protect a party who wishes to continue that party’s role as a parent;

   10)Any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party has provided, is to provide or may be liable to provide in the future;

   11)Any fact or circumstance which the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.

4. Over the years there has been much consideration given to what is meant by the term “adequately” where it appears in section 72 and what can be distilled from the various authorities is that adequate support is not limited to a subsistence level of bare necessities but nor is it at the luxury end of the spectrum. That said the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the marriage is a relevant factor in determining the adequacy of the support. Ultimately, the assessment comes down to what is “reasonable in the circumstances”. (see Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600 for a discussion of the relevant authorities)

5. As to the proper approach in considering an application for spouse maintenance, the Full Court in Bevan and Bevan (supra, commencing at 81,981) observed:

   Taken together, then, we would state the law as being that an award of spousal maintenance requires:

   1) a threshold finding under section 72;

   2) consideration of section 74 and section 75(2);

   3)     No fettering principle that pre-separation standard of living must automatically be awarded where the respondent’s means permit; and

   4) discretion exercised in accordance with the provisions of s 74, with “reasonableness in the circumstances” as the guiding principle.

6. In the marriage of DJM and JLM (1998) FLC 92-816 from [17.22] the Full Court considered what “earning capacity” meant and was attracted to a discussion in overseas jurisdictions which focused on ability and opportunity. In considering ‘ability’, the court would have regard to factors such as age, occupation, skills, education, health, background, work experience and qualifications. In relation to ‘opportunity’ the court would have regard to whether an employer is willing to hire. The Full Court went on to observe (at [17.38]):

   Once earning capacity has been established by making findings about ability and opportunity, there remains in spousal maintenance cases, the questions posed by ss 72 and 74 as to what is “reasonable” and what is “proper”.

7. The fact that this is an interim hearing where neither party sought to cross-examine the other nor any witness, is a matter affecting the approach to be adopted in determining such an application. As held in Redman and Redman (1987) FLC 91-805 at 76,081:

   … this was an interim order. Whilst we agree with the view expressed in Ashton that in principle such an order is one under sec. 74, to which the principles of sec. 72… may be applicable, … the very fact that the order is limited in time imports certain different considerations. One of these is that such an order is intended to be reconsidered, quite apart from a variation under sec. 83. …Another consequence is that on an application for interim maintenance the court conducts “not as final or exhaustive a hearing as would be the case if one were hearing the matter finally”: Williamson and Williamson (1978) FLC 90-505; (1978) 4 Fam. L. R.355 at FLC p.77, 650; Fam. L. R. p. 359 per Fogarty J. The evidence need not be so extensive and the findings not so precise. Having regard to those factors, and the general injunction of sec. 97(3), the court should in such matters have a greater degree of flexibility than it possesses in applications for maintenance which are intended to last for an indefinite period and can only be varied under sec. 83.

The threshold finding

1. The wife is, in my view, readily able to meet the threshold issue of being unable to support herself adequately, on an interim basis. She has been out of the open workforce since 1993 and was the main homemaker and parent throughout her married life. While she worked in the family businesses there is nothing in the evidence before me which would suggest that her qualifications for employment are other than limited, despite her holding a professional licence. She has no formal qualifications and has never worked in the area in which she is licenced. She has applied for numerous employment positions since separation but has to date been unsuccessful in her attempts to obtain a position. She has no income and only a very modest sum in the bank.

1. The wife sets out her reasonable weekly needs in Part N of her Financial Statement. After deducting the 2015 income tax, mortgage, rates, home insurance, motor vehicle lease payments, maintenance, registration and car insurance (all of which the husband will continue to pay), the wife’s personal expenditure is $823.50 per week or $3,568.50 per calendar month.

2. In addition the wife sets out expenses paid by her in relation to the children but I have not included expenses in relation to the children for the reasons outlined in Stein and Stein (2000) FLC 93-004 where the Full Court held:

   49. It seems to us that in the context of an application for spousal maintenance the consideration in s 75(2)(d) of

   ``the commitments of each of the parties that are necessary to enable the party to support... a child... that the party has a duty to maintain''

   has greater significance in determining the capacity of a payer to provide support rather than in determining the extent to which the other party requires support. In a maintenance case if, for example, a husband is called upon to pay maintenance for his wife, the Court must determine his capacity to pay that maintenance having regard to his obligation to support his children. The level of support that the wife needs for herself is not dependent upon the level of support she must give to others.

3. I also note that the parties have resolved the adult child maintenance claim in the terms sought by the wife and that a child support assessment has recently issued for F.

Capacity to pay

1. Since separation the husband has continued his role in the operation of the businesses and has received the income from the businesses and paid expenses for himself and for the family. He alone has been in the position to make decisions about what expenses are paid leaving the wife in a position where she has no access to funds herself. He has made discretionary spending decisions such as buying a jet ski. He contends that the financial position of the businesses is now such that payments other than as proposed by him in his Response cannot be sustained.

2. While the husband annexed to his affidavit some estimates for the net profit/loss for some of the entities, C Pty Ltd, D Pty Ltd and E Pty Ltd for the six months to December 2015 it is not clear who has prepared those documents and whether it would be appropriate to annualise the figures. It is common ground that the major source of income for the parties comes from the property management business which has 201 rental properties on its rent roll. There is no evidence that there has been a diminution in the number of properties managed. I also note that in the husband’s estimates the net profit (before tax) for D Pty Ltd for the six months to December 2015 exceeds the 2015 financial year (entire year) net profit (before tax) by $22,169. I further note that the commission income for E Pty Ltd for the six months to December 2015 is (if annualised) likely to exceed the commission income for the 2015 financial year. If there are additional expenses it is not clear on the evidence why that is so.

3. However doing the best I can on the evidence before me, the most reliable evidence is as contained in tax returns and financial statements for the 2015 financial year.

4. In my view, the husband’s capacity to pay spouse maintenance can best be determined by considering the net income from all businesses by reference to those financial statements and tax returns.

5. The net income available to the husband is as follows (with adjustments made by me for the reasons stated):

Table A

Entity	Amount	Adjustments	Income/loss
Husband	$99,845	Less loss on investments (excluding depreciation) - $6,459 and tax (including medicare) $19,922.75	$73,632.25
Wife	$99,845	Less tax $27,259.48	$72,585.52
G Pty Ltd	Nil	($1,475)
C Pty Ltd	$474,490	Less expenses (excluding depreciation) - $487,795	($13,303)
D Pty Ltd	$397,267	Less expenses including tax  (excluding depreciation) - $352,971 plus tax refund $7,021	$51,317
H Pty Ltd	$10,340	Less expenses (excluding depreciation) - $4,102	$6,238*
E Pty Ltd	$2,105,231	Less expenses $2,091,789	$13,443
Total available income	$196,199.77

*This is no longer trading so has not been included in the total

1. I take into account that the income of the entities will no longer be split between the parties which will no doubt increase the taxation payable. I am unable though, on the evidence before me, to determine precisely what that extra tax will be.

2. As the husband alone will have access to the income of the entities the weekly/monthly available income, based on Table A, is $3,773.07/$16,349.98.

3. The husband’s weekly expenses are set out in his Financial Statement at Part G and Part N.

4. They are as follows (with adjustments made by me for the reasons stated):

Table B

Expense	Amount	Adjustment	Adjusted expense
Income tax	$750	Already factored in table A above	$0
Superannuation	$200	Absent any evidence that this is other than a voluntary sum it is excluded	$0
Home mortgage and rent	$762	$762
Rates and water	$105	$105
Rates etc investment properties	$21	Already factored in Table A	$0
Life insurance premium	$34	$34
Landlord insurance	$6	Already factored in Table A	$0
Medical insurance	$125	$125
Home Insurance	$29	$29
Suncorp investment property loan	$342	Already factored in Table A	$0
Visa repayments	$300	Only $2,500 owing so unlikely to be an ongoing commitment but included nevertheless	$300
Food (including children)	$170	$170
Household supplies	$40	$40
House repairs	$60	$60
Electricity	$60	$60
Clothing (including children)	$50	$50
Medical and dental	$20	$20
Holidays (including children)	$60	$60
Cleaning	$30	$30
Investment property outgoings	$152	Already factored in Table A	$0
Adult child maintenance	$185	$185
Assessed child support	$175	$175
Children’s activities	$40	$40
Education expenses for child	$119	$119
Wife’s 2015 tax	$101.56	$101.56
Total	$2,465.56

1. I find that the husband has a capacity to pay up to $1,307.51 per week. However, as stated above there is likely to be a greater income tax impost given the inability to split income.

2. I have already found that the wife’s reasonable weekly needs are $823.50 (excluding house and car expenses).

3. Accordingly I will make an order that the husband pay the mortgage, rates, insurance for the former matrimonial home, the car lease, registration, insurance and maintenance costs for the car in the wife’s possession and her 2015 tax and a periodic sum of $823.50 per week/$3,568.50 per month.

Adult child maintenance

1. While the parties agree on the provision of adult child maintenance the proposed order for periodic payment as set out in Exhibit 1 does not state that it is for a limited period. I note however that the parties proceeded before me on the basis of an interim hearing and accordingly I have included the interim nature of that order in the orders I have made. 

Disclosure/access to information/injunctions

1. The remaining orders sought by the wife concern disclosure, access to information, and injunctions against the husband relating to financial dealings.

2. The husband cross-applies for orders relating to disclosure.

3. I note that comprehensive orders were made on 3 March 2016 relating to disclosure and there is no persuasive evidence before me of a failure by either party to comply with their obligations under that order or, for that matter, of their obligations as to disclosure under the Family Law Rules. The parties will be aware by now of the ongoing nature of their disclosure obligations and the matters for which orders are sought in paragraph 4 of Exhibit 1 appear to fall within the category of documents required to be disclosed.

4. Accordingly, I do not propose to make any further orders relating to disclosure or access to information other than those set out in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the husband’s Response filed 29 February 2016.

5. In relation to the injunctions sought in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Exhibit 1, the injunctions are sought pursuant to s 114 and s 34 of the Act. Section 34(1) relevantly provides:

   The Court has power, in relation to matters in which it has jurisdiction, to make orders of such kinds ... as the Court considers appropriate.

   And s 114(3) relevantly provides:

   A court ... may grant an injunction, by interlocutory order or otherwise ... in any case in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so and either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.

6. The following considerations prior to granting an injunction appear to be well settled by authority: (Waugh and Waugh (2000) FLC 93-052; [2000] FamCA 1183 and Mullen and  De Bry  (2006) FLC 93-293; [2006] FamCA 1380)

   a.Whether there is a serious issue to be tried;

   b.The balance of convenience;

   c.Whether there is any objective risk of disposal of assets if the injunction is not granted; and

   d.If it is considered appropriate to issue injunctions they should to the minimum extent required.

7. I am not persuaded that the mere annexing to her affidavit various bank statements showing debits is sufficient evidence of wastage or inappropriate use of funds by the husband. Indeed some debits appear to have been paid to the wife or benefited the wife and children. Further I am not persuaded that the balance of convenience favours the making of such orders. The proposed injunctions are exceedingly wide and I accept the submission of counsel on behalf of the husband that such orders would impose unjustified restrictions upon the husband in his normal day to day operation of the businesses conducted by him. I am not persuaded that the evidence supports a risk of disposal of assets and note that the husband has in fact reduced the loan facility available and has provided an provided an undertaking filed 29 February 2016 in the following terms:

   I will not dispose of my interest in [C Pty Ltd, D Pty Ltd, E Pty Ltd, H Pty Ltd], or the businesses trading as [O Pty Ltd] or [P] Centre without giving the Wife 14 days notice in writing of my intention to do so and providing her with relevant documentation as to the proposed disposal.

8. Accordingly I propose to dismiss the wife’s application for injunctive relief.

Summary

1. The wife has succeeded in her application for interim spouse maintenance. Her remaining applications will be dismissed.

2. The parties have already agreed in previous orders to obtain valuations and attend mediation and the matter is due to return to court on 18 May 2016 for a determination of parenting issues should they remain unresolved.  Should further directions be required to progress the matter they can be considered on the next court date.

I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Carew delivered on 29 April 2016.

Associate:

Date:  29 April 2016