Hall v Hall [2016] HCA 23: Spousal Maintenance

The High Court has dismissed an appeal from the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in the case of Hall v Hall [2016] HCA 23. The High Court agreed with the Full Court of the Family Court and concluded that just cause had been shown to discharge an interim spousal maintenance order in accordance with the Family Law Act 1975.

Background

The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were separated and the wife commenced proceedings in the Family Court seeking an interim spousal maintenance order. At the time, the Court learned that her financial assets included two luxury cars given to her by her brothers and an ‘interest’ in her late father’s estate relating to a family business (the Group) which was currently controlled by her brothers. Without further evidence revealing the nature of her ‘interest’, the Court did not take this ‘interest’ into account when weighing her financial circumstances. Accordingly, the Court made an interim spousal maintenance order.

The husband later applied for a discharge of this order on the basis that he had come into new evidence detailing the nature of the wife’s ‘interest’. The husband relied on new evidence of the father’s “wishes” that his ex-wife should receive a lump sum of $16,500,000 from the Group in the event of her divorce from her husband and that she would receive a sum of $150,000 annually until the date of the lump sum payment. The wife argued that she had not received any annual payment from the Group and, on this basis, the judge dismissed the husband’s application.

The husband appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Family Court arguing that the primary judge had failed to consider all the necessary evidence before her in her decision to not discharge the order. The Full Court considered the matter and found that despite that the nature of the payment from the Group would be a voluntary payment the brothers would have made the annual payment to their sister if she had requested it. To this end, the Full Court found in favour of the husband and discharged the order.

Appeal to the High Court

By majority, the High Court held that the Full Court's finding that the wife would have received the annual payment had she requested it was well open on the evidence before it. To this extent, the annual payment was considered to be a “financial resource” on the part of the wife and was relevant to the question of whether or not she would be able to independently support herself. The High Court agreed with the Full Family Court and dismissed her appeal.

 TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Hall v Hall [2016] HCA 23 and judgment summary