YOUNAN & YOUNAN

In *Younan & Younan* [2012] FamCA 1042, the Family Court of Australia considered competing interim applications by a wife and husband concerning the former matrimonial home and parenting arrangements for their two children. The wife sought sole use and occupation of the home, spousal maintenance, payment of mortgage instalments and rates, litigation funding, and injunctive relief. The husband sought orders for the children to live with him alternate weeks, a welfare report, sole use and occupation of the home, and property preservation injunctions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the wife interim sole use and occupation of the former matrimonial home, and to determine interim parenting orders. The court also considered applications for property preservation injunctions and interim property settlement. The court noted that interim proceedings are an abridged process and findings of fact should only be made where facts are not in dispute.

The court reasoned that while the husband disputed the wife's role as primary caregiver, evidence suggested she likely was. The court found that the wife and children's current accommodation was temporary and unsuitable, and that the children required a stable environment. Applying principles from cases like *S & S* and *Davis & Davis*, the court considered the hardship to each party, the needs of the children, and whether it was reasonable for the parties to remain in the home together. The court concluded that it was not reasonable for the parties to continue living together, and that the wife's application for sole use and occupation was not a tactical weapon. The court also found the husband to be in a significantly more advantageous financial position, capable of meeting the mortgage and outgoings for the home.

By consent, the court made interim parenting orders regarding the children's time with the husband and ordered the husband to pay the wife $100,000 as an interim property settlement. Mutual injunctions were also made to preserve property. The court ordered that the wife have the sole use and occupation of the former matrimonial home and that the husband vacate by 14 January 2013. All extant applications for parenting orders were adjourned to a later date.