SIMPKIN & SIMPKIN

In the matter of Simpkin & Simpkin, the wife sought interim orders from the Federal Court of Australia for the husband to pay for repairs to the former matrimonial home. The wife's application was framed as an application for an interim distribution of property.

The legal issues before the Court were whether it was necessary or appropriate to make orders for the payment of repairs to the former matrimonial home, and whether to grant interim costs and interim property settlement for future legal expenses. The Court considered whether to depart from the usual presumption that each party bears their own costs, and whether it would be just and equitable to make the orders sought by the wife for legal costs.

McClelland J determined that the application for repairs should be dealt with as an application for injunctive orders under s 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), rather than an interim property distribution. His Honour found that the parties' proposals regarding repairs pre-dated information from the insurer about necessary work, and therefore it was not necessary or appropriate for the Court to make such orders at that time. Regarding the wife's applications for interim costs and property settlement for legal expenses, the Court found an insufficient evidentiary basis to depart from the s 117(1) presumption regarding costs. Furthermore, the wife had already received substantial funds for legal costs, and the Court concluded that making further orders for future legal expenses was not in the interests of justice, as the evidence was insufficient to establish that such orders would be just and equitable.

Consequently, the wife's Application in a Case filed on 23 June 2016 and her Application in a Case filed on 8 July 2016 were dismissed. Costs in relation to these applications were reserved.