TALLANT & TALLANT

In the matter of *Tallant & Tallant*, Johnston J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by a wife seeking to enforce previously made consent orders for property settlement and spousal maintenance, and a counter-application by the husband seeking to discharge his ongoing obligations under those orders. The central dispute revolved around the characterisation of a specific order made by the Local Court at Suburb F.

The court was required to determine whether the relevant order constituted a property settlement order or a spousal maintenance order. This distinction was critical because property orders are generally final, whereas spousal maintenance orders are capable of variation or discharge under section 83 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to consider whether, if the order was for spousal maintenance, it would be just and proper to discharge it, taking into account the parties' current financial circumstances.

Johnston J found that, despite a notation in the original terms of settlement that was inconsistent with a spousal maintenance order, the order in question was indeed a spousal maintenance order. Applying the principles from *Naughton & Naughton*, the court determined that it had the power to vary or discharge the order. After considering the financial positions of both parties, the court concluded that it was just and proper to discharge the original orders. The husband was ordered to pay the wife a lump sum of $30,000 by 30 November 2015 and monthly spousal maintenance of $750 from 2 November 2015 until 2 October 2016.