FLAST NEWS
 ·   ·  766 posts
  •  ·  4700 friends

$1,500 Per Week: Judge Orders Interim Spousal Maintenance in Sandos v Sandos

Introduction

In Sandos & Sandos [2025] FedCFamC1F 131, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) ruled on an application for interim spousal maintenance. The judgment, delivered by Campton J, reflects the principles underlying sections 72 and 74 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It deals with one party’s entitlement to maintenance and the obligations of the financially stronger party, even in the face of incomplete financial disclosure. The ruling is a salient example of how the law balances fairness, needs, and capacity within the context of marital breakdown and pending property disputes.

Facts and Issues

Facts:

  • The wife (68) and husband (67) commenced cohabitation in 1978 and married in 1982.
  • Separation was contested: the husband claims 2014, while the wife contends it occurred in 2022.
  • Three adult children.
  • The wife applied for spousal maintenance of $1,806 per week.
  • The husband did not oppose the idea of maintenance but contested the amount, offering $900/week.
  • The wife had no income, owned several properties (some unoccupied), and savings of ~$49,000.
  • The husband, an accountant and real estate agent, operated businesses including B Pty Ltd and C Company, and managed significant funds, often transferring them to a related entity, D Pty Ltd.
  • The husband failed to file a Financial Statement.

Legal Issues:

  1. Has the wife met the statutory "gateway" threshold under s 72(1) of the Family Law Act 1975?
  2. What is the reasonable quantum of interim spousal maintenance?
  3. Can inferences be drawn against the husband for failing to disclose financial details?
  4. Should the wife be required to earn income from her unoccupied property?

Application of Law to Facts

Justice Campton began the legal reasoning with s 72(1) and s 74 of the Family Law Act 1975, affirming that a party must maintain the other if they are unable to support themselves adequately and the first-mentioned party is reasonably able to do so.

Gateway Test:

  • The gateway threshold under s 72 was accepted based on prior maintenance payments and the husband’s concession. This was reinforced by the High Court in Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490
  • .

Quantum:

  • The wife’s financial statement showed weekly expenses of $1,806. This was uncontested by the husband, implicitly acknowledging the reasonableness of the claim
  • .

Failure to Disclose Financials:

  • The husband’s failure to file a Financial Statement allowed the court to infer he had the capacity to pay a reasonable amount.
  • Financial documents showed that his company, B Pty Ltd, transferred $11,000 weekly to D Pty Ltd—a related entity. These transactions supported the wife’s assertion that he had sufficient means
  • .

Rental Property:

  • The wife owned a second property (Suburb J) she chose not to lease. While the court acknowledged that potential income could be generated, there was insufficient evidence to quantify its impact. Importantly, the court reiterated that a spouse is not obligated to exhaust capital or unrealised income potential before seeking maintenance, as held in Bevan and Bevan (1995) and Mitchell and Mitchell (1995)
  • .

Judgment and Reasoning

Justice Campton concluded that:

  • The wife reasonably required $1,500 per week, considering her expenses and some potential (but unrealised) rental income
  • The husband’s business and financial affairs indicated capacity to pay that amount.
  • In the absence of contrary evidence or detailed financials from the husband, the court relied on financial statements and inferred control and benefit over various corporate structures.

Key Judicial Reasoning:

  • Historical payments and the absence of any rebuttal suggested the husband accepted a duty of maintenance.
  • Financial complexity and interrelated corporate payments supported the wife’s claim of his financial capability.
  • Non-engagement with formal financial disclosure by the husband weakened his case and allowed inferences to be drawn against him.

Take-Home Lessons

  1. Transparency Matters: A failure to file financial disclosures will significantly undermine a party’s position, as courts are entitled to draw adverse inferences.
  2. Maintenance Based on Need and Capacity: The court focuses on actual needs and proven or inferred ability to pay—not just offers or informal arrangements.
  3. Corporate Structures Won’t Shield Liability: Judges can trace financial benefits through related entities, especially in family law where transparency is expected.
  4. Not Obligated to Use Capital: A party seeking spousal maintenance isn't necessarily required to liquidate or exploit all capital assets to qualify.

FLAST

Close