SAPPHO & SAPPHO

In the matter of SAPPHO & SAPPHO, Berman J considered applications by the wife for interim spousal maintenance and litigation funding, and by the wife for orders concerning the children's living arrangements. The wife, who had been the primary homemaker and carer for the children, sought periodic spousal maintenance, which the husband opposed. The husband's financial position was uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 on his profession, with his expenses reportedly exceeding his income. The wife also sought litigation funding due to her inability to pay her legal fees, while the husband had met his own. Regarding the children, the wife sought an order for the husband to personally supervise them during school holidays when in his care, with the husband indicating any care by others would be of limited duration.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interim lump sum spousal maintenance to the wife, considering the husband's financial circumstances and the wife's inability to support herself. It also had to decide on the wife's application for litigation funding or a dollar-for-dollar property settlement order, given the modest property pool and financial disparity between the parties. Finally, the court needed to assess whether the wife's proposed orders regarding the husband's supervision of the children during school holidays were in the children's best interests.

Berman J ordered the husband to pay the wife $16,253 by way of lump sum spousal maintenance, calculated at $521 per week for 31 weeks, to be paid from the "Children's Account". The court also ordered the husband to pay $50,000 to the wife's solicitors within 30 days as partial settlement of property. In the event of default, the Suburb D property was to be listed for sale, with the net proceeds to be divided equally between the parties up to $50,000 each, and any balance to be held pending further order. The court further ordered that the parties would jointly instruct valuers for various properties and the husband's interest in a group of companies, subject to their agreement. The application for the husband to personally supervise the children during school holidays was dismissed, with the court finding such an order was not in the children's best interests.