VALENCIA & MCGILL

In the matter of *Valencia & McGill*, heard by Rees J, the wife sought various interim orders concerning spousal maintenance, property settlement, and injunctions. The husband conceded the wife's inability to support herself, leading to an application for periodic spousal maintenance. The wife also sought a sum of $135,000 as an interim property settlement, and an injunction to restrain the husband from drawing down on his superannuation.

The court was required to determine the appropriate quantum for interim spousal maintenance, considering the wife's reasonable needs. It also had to decide whether the wife's request for $135,000 was best characterised as interim property settlement, costs, or lump sum spousal maintenance, and whether this amount was likely to exceed her final entitlement. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the terms of an injunction to protect the wife's potential interest in the husband's superannuation.

Rees J reasoned that the husband's concession regarding the wife's inability to support herself justified an order for periodic spousal maintenance. The court found it appropriate to characterise the $135,000 sought by the wife as an interim property settlement, noting it was unlikely to exceed her final entitlement. An injunction was granted to restrain the husband from withdrawing funds from his superannuation without providing the wife with prior written notice and paying her 50 per cent of the withdrawn amount within seven days of receipt.

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $135,000 by way of interim property settlement within seven days. Additionally, the husband was ordered to pay the wife $1,285 per week by way of spousal maintenance, commencing on 24 July 2017. The husband was also ordered to pay all outgoings on a specified property and was restrained from withdrawing superannuation funds without providing the wife with 21 days' written notice and paying her 50 per cent of any withdrawal within seven days of receipt.