TOLARNO & TOLARNO

In the matter of *Tolaro & Tolaro*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by both the wife and the husband concerning property settlement and spousal maintenance. The wife sought a partial property settlement to fund litigation, given the husband's apparent immediate control over a substantial asset pool estimated at approximately $6 million. The husband also sought a similar sum by way of partial property settlement. The wife further sought spousal maintenance, either periodically or as a lump sum.

The court was required to determine whether to make orders for partial property settlement in favour of the wife, and whether to make a similar order in favour of the husband. Additionally, the court had to consider the wife's claim for spousal maintenance, assessing whether she met the criteria under section 72 of the relevant Act and, if so, whether it should be awarded as a lump sum or periodic payments. The court also addressed ancillary matters, including the husband's application for costs and the wife's application under section 106A of the Act.

Cronin J found a basis to make an order for partial property settlement in favour of the wife, but not the husband, noting the husband's access to funds. The court determined that the wife satisfied the test for spousal maintenance under section 72 of the Act, concluding that a lump sum payment would be more appropriate to prevent further conflict. The court dismissed the husband's application for costs, finding no basis to depart from the general rule under section 117 of the Act, and similarly found no grounds to make an order under section 106A at that stage.

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $120,000 by way of partial property settlement and $80,000 by way of capitalised spousal maintenance. Further orders directed the parties to arrange for the completion of outstanding taxation returns and valuations of real estate and business interests, with associated professional costs to be paid from joint resources. The parties were also ordered to provide discovery and engage counsel for advice on accounting matters. All interim applications were otherwise dismissed.