Sandos & Sandos

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 131

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Sandos & Sandos [2025] FedCFamC1F 131

File number: WOC 219 of 2024
Judgment of: CAMPTON J
Date of judgment: 28 February 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the wife seeks that the husband pay her $1,806 per week in spousal maintenance – Where the husband concedes that spousal maintenance should be paid, but puts the quantum into issue – Where the husband does not put the wife’s evidence as to her weekly expenses into issue – Where the wife does not utilise one of her unoccupied real properties to produce income – Where the husband did not file and Financial Statement and did not adduce material evidence as to his financial circumstances – Where an inference is made, and the evidence establishes, that the husband has capacity to pay a reasonable periodic amount to maintain the wife – Orders made providing for the husband to pay to the wife $1,500 each week by way of interim spousal maintenance.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72, 74, 79
Cases cited:

Bevan and Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600; [1993] FamCA 95

Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490; [2016] HCA 23

Mitchell and Mitchell (1995) FLC 92-601; [1995] FamCA 32

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 24
Date of hearing: 27 February 2025
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:  Mr Stapleton
Solicitor for the Applicant:  Mitchell Family Lawyers
The Respondent: Litigant in person

ORDERS

WOC 219 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MS SANDOS

Applicant
AND:

MR SANDOS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 FEBRAURY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pending further order, the husband shall cause to be paid to the wife by way of spousal maintenance the sum of $1,500 per week to be deposited each Monday into her nominated bank account as nominated to the husband in writing within seven days of this order, with the first payment to be made on or before 7 March 2025.  

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sandos & Sandos has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CAMPTON J:

  1. By way of her Application in a Proceeding filed on…

Continue reading Sandos & Sandos

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sandos & Sandos [2025] FedCFamC1F 131
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sandos v Sandos, the wife sought interim spousal maintenance from her husband following the separation of the couple. The husband conceded that spousal maintenance should be paid but disputed the amount. The wife did not utilise one of her unoccupied real properties to produce income, and the husband did not file a Financial Statement or provide substantial evidence about his financial circumstances. The court was required to determine the reasonable amount of spousal maintenance the husband should pay to the wife. The court found that the husband had the capacity to pay a reasonable periodic amount to maintain the wife, given his financial resources and property, including his corporate interests.

The court made several findings regarding the husband's financial situation. The husband's corporation, B Pty Ltd, generated at least $11,000 weekly in 2024, which was paid to D Pty Ltd. The wife claimed that the husband was the beneficial owner of D Pty Ltd, and the court found this plausible given the lack of explanation for the weekly payments. Additionally, funds flowed from D Pty Ltd to other corporations, some of which the parties disputed ownership. The court also noted regular payments from D Pty Ltd to S Company. Given these findings, the court determined that the husband had the capacity to pay the wife $1,500 per week in spousal maintenance. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $1,500 each week by way of periodic spousal maintenance, to be deposited into her nominated bank account each Monday.

In conclusion, the court found it appropriate for the husband to pay the wife $1,500 per week in spousal maintenance based on his financial capacity and resources. The court made an order to that effect, requiring the husband to pay the wife the specified amount weekly, with the first payment due by 7 March 2025. This decision was made considering the husband's substantial financial resources and the wife's reasonable periodic needs.

Orders

Orders of the court

WOC 219 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS SANDOS

Applicant

AND:

MR SANDOS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 FEBRAURY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pending further order, the husband shall cause to be paid to the wife by way of spousal maintenance the sum of $1,500 per week to be deposited each Monday into her nominated bank account as nominated to the husband in writing within seven days of this order, with the first payment to be made on or before 7 March 2025.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

The wife relied on her affidavit filed on 24 January 2025, her Financial Statement filed on 24 January 2025, and documents tendered into evidence at the hearing. The husband relied on a document he signed on 26 February 2025 in the form of an affidavit, affirmed by way of oral evidence given at the hearing. He did not file a Financial Statement.BACKGROUND By way of an Initiating Application filed on 28 February 2024 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), the wife sought orders as to the adjustment of property between she and the husband pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). By way of a Response to an Initiating Application filed on 2 April 2024, the husband sought different orders as to the adjustment of property. The proceeding was transferred to this Court on 12 November 2024. The wife was born in 1956 and is currently 68 years old. The husband was born in 1957 and is currently 67 years old. The parties commenced cohabitation in 1978 and were married in 1982. The husband contends that he and the wife affected separation on 14 October 2014 and that the wife locked him out of the matrimonial home in January 2022. The wife contends that the parties separated in January 2022. They are not yet divorced. There are three children of the marriage, all of whom are now adults. The husband is an accountant and a real estate agent. He operates two trading enterprises, B Pty Ltd (“B Pty Ltd”) (an entity he concedes is his property, he being its sole shareholder and director), a financial services concern, and C Company. The wife says that she has not been in formal employment outside of the husband’s business, and that she worked in the husband’s trading enterprises in a secretarial role from time to time during their relationship but has not undertaken such work in over 20 years. I accept that evidence in circumstances where the husband does not put it into issue. The husband said since the date he contends separation occurred in October 2014, he has paid the wife $1,500 of “spousal maintenance on a weekly basis”, with “superannuation too”. The wife says that from 2020, the husband provided her with $1,000 per week and then from June 2021 paid her $1,165 each week. The wife says that the money was initially paid from D Pty Ltd (“D Pty Ltd”), and the husband says the wife was paid from “various entities”. The husband says that since B Pty Ltd was incorporated, that entity has paid those funds. The wife agrees that at some point the funds began coming instead from B Pty Ltd’s E Bank Account. Exhibit 2 are statements as to account #...41 held by B Pty Ltd for the period 14 February 2024 to 13 September 2024. They record funds paid out with the description “[the wife] wages” of $1,165 each week. The last date of payment in the exhibit is 16 May 2024. The wife says, and I accept it as it was not put into issue by the husband, that these payments ceased in December 2024, shortly after the first listing of the s 79 dispute in the Major Complex Financial Proceedings list.THE LAW

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I find absent explanation from the husband, that his corporation, B Pty Ltd, generated at least $11,000 each week during the 2024 calendar year that was paid to D Pty Ltd. The wife contends that the husband is the beneficial owner of D Pty Ltd and that the corporation is his property amenable to adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Act. The weekly payment of $11,000 from the husband’s corporation to the corporation of the party’s daughter is absent documentation supporting any reason for it, such as repayment of a loan or some other liability. A plain reading of Exhibit 3 records descriptions as to the application of funds in the P Bank cash management account for the direct benefit of the husband, being paid to corporations he concedes are his property in the joint balance sheet including O Company, Q Pty Ltd, the trustee of the husband’s self-managed superannuation fund, and R Pty Ltd. Further, funds flow from D Pty Ltd to other corporations of which the parties are in dispute as to whether others hold their interests in them beneficially for the husband. Additionally, regular payments are made from the D Pty Ltd bank account to S Company. I find that the husband’s property, including by way of his corporate interests, and his resources, establish that he has capacity to make provision to pay the determined reasonable periodic needs of the wife of $1,500 each week.CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, I find it proper for the husband to pay the wife $1,500 per week by way of periodic spousal maintenance. An order shall be made to that effect.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.