SHELBOURNE & SHELBOURNE

In the matter of *Shelbourne & Shelbourne*, Loughnan J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the wife for interim financial orders, including a payment of $100,000 by way of partial property settlement to cover legal fees and a dollar-for-dollar costs order. The husband opposed these orders. The wife contended she lacked the capacity to meet her legal costs, having incurred unpaid expenses exceeding $100,000. The husband also sought to vacate a previously made order for spousal maintenance, arguing it was unreasonable to interrupt the arrangement shortly before the final hearing.

The court was required to determine whether to make an order for a partial property settlement to meet the wife's legal costs, considering the enforceability of such an order and the availability of liquid funds. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to vacate the existing spousal maintenance order.

Loughnan J reasoned that an order for partial property settlement was not appropriate as there was no evidence of $100,000 in liquid funds available to the husband. However, the court did make a dollar-for-dollar costs order pursuant to s 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975*. This order mandated that the husband pay to the wife's solicitors, on account of her legal costs and disbursements, sums equivalent to any money paid by or on behalf of the husband to his own solicitors or barristers, or held in trust for him by his solicitors, excluding payments for single expert fees. The court also found it unreasonable to interrupt the existing spousal maintenance arrangement so close to the final hearing.

The court ordered that within seven days, the husband provide the mother with an authority for her to collect a motor vehicle, granting her the use of that vehicle until further order. The wife's application for a partial property settlement was dismissed, as were the husband's application to vacate the spousal maintenance order and the associated Application in a Case and Response.