VERDINCK & STEVENS

In *Verdinck & Stevens*, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered applications by the applicant for interim property distribution, interim spousal maintenance, and the continuation of a preservation of property injunction. The respondent sought the discharge of an existing injunction.

The court was required to determine whether to grant an interim property distribution to the applicant, who stated an inability to meet her legal costs. It also had to consider the applicant's claim for interim spousal maintenance, assessing whether the threshold under s 90SF of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) was met, given the evidence of earning capacity. Finally, the court had to decide whether a previously granted s 114 injunction preserving property remained "proper" or "just or convenient" in the circumstances.

Justice Gill ordered an interim property distribution of $25,000 to the applicant, finding it appropriate to enable her to meet her legal costs. However, the application for interim spousal maintenance was refused, as the court found insufficient evidence of the respondent's earning capacity to make a determination and concluded the s 90SF threshold was not met. The existing s 114 injunction was discharged, as the court determined it was no longer just or convenient to maintain the restraint on the respondent's property, although a modified form of restraint was imposed on specific assets. The remaining aspects of the applicant's application were dismissed.