VINCENT & VINCENT

In *Vincent & Vincent*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for interim property settlement and interim spousal maintenance. The husband argued he lacked the financial capacity to meet the wife's interim property settlement demands. The court was asked to determine whether it was just and equitable to make the interim property settlement orders sought by the wife, and to consider the wife's application for interim spousal maintenance.

The court was required to determine whether to exercise its power under sections 79 and 80 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to make an interim property settlement order, considering the overarching principle of the interests of justice. It also had to consider the husband's assertion of financial incapacity to meet the proposed payments and the wife's application for interim spousal maintenance.

Justice Macmillan applied the principles established in *Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders)*, which emphasise that the interests of justice are paramount when considering interim property orders, and that it is not necessary to establish compelling circumstances. The court noted that a party with an "irresistible claim" should not be held out of their property while litigation proceeds. The husband's assertion of financial incapacity was not considered a bar to making the order, as the question of enforcement is separate from the propriety of granting the order. The court found that the husband had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of incapacity.

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $150,000 by way of interim property settlement, with $90,000 payable within 7 days and $60,000 on 1 July 2013. The court also ordered, by consent, that the husband provide specific financial documents to the wife's solicitors within 14 days. The wife's application for interim spousal maintenance was adjourned to a later date.