Riley and Riley

This case involved an application by the wife, Ms Riley, for interim property orders concerning the proceeds of sale of her real property located at D Street, Suburb E, Victoria. The husband, Mr Riley, had lodged a caveat against this property, which the wife sought to have withdrawn. The substantive proceedings, an application by the husband for final property settlement, were scheduled for a five-day trial. The wife required the net proceeds from the sale of the Suburb E property to meet her outstanding and anticipated legal costs, including those for expert witnesses, and to pay off significant credit card debts. The husband opposed the wife's application, arguing that the proceeds should be divided equally as part settlement of property.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's application for interim orders, specifically concerning the withdrawal of the caveat and the distribution of the sale proceeds. Key issues included the allocation of funds for the wife's legal costs and capital gains tax liability, as well as the discharge of her credit card debts. The court also considered the husband's opposition, which centred on the quantum of the capital gains tax and his assertion that the proceeds should be divided equally as part settlement. The wife sought orders under sections 79 and 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court reasoned that it had the power to make the orders sought and applied the principles from *Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders)* (2011) FLC 93-466, which permits interim orders for legal costs in preparation for trial. The court noted the wife's sworn evidence of her legal costs and her inability to pay them, contrasted with the husband's control over the parties' primary income-producing asset, Riley Pty Ltd, from which he had funded his own legal expenses. The court also considered the husband's previous affidavit suggesting the wife sell the property to cover her legal costs. The court found it just and equitable to make orders for the wife to receive the net proceeds of the sale to defray her legal costs.

The court ordered that the husband forthwith withdraw the caveat lodged against the Suburb E property. The proceeds from the sale were to be applied first to the costs, commission, and expenses of the sale, and the balance was to be paid to the wife. Additionally, the husband was ordered to disclose in writing to the wife's lawyers details of his billed and unbilled legal fees and disbursements, expert witness fees, amounts owed, sources of payment, and anticipated future legal costs. The costs of this application were reserved.