WTP v WTQ

[4] In my view, the appellant’s reliance on the financial statements of the Company showing it to be in poor health was not sufficient to show a material change in the appellant’s circumstances. A fuller and more detailed picture of the appellant’s finances was required. The appellant may remain asset rich, notwithstanding the Company’s poor performance in recent years. The appellant may have an unreasonably high expenditure every month which renders any claim of inability to pay to the respondent her monthly entitlement moot. In other words, the appellant has not discharged his burden of proof. As such, DCA 8 was dismissed.

[5] At the hearing, the respondent stated that her health was not in a good state and as such she was now unemployed. She stated that she would accept any judgment, and in any event, the appellant would not pay. She explained that “[e]ven the $1,000 has not been paid”. It must be made clear that the appellant remains responsible and liable to pay to the respondent $1,000 a month in maintenance, as long as his maintenance obligation remains in force. He also remains responsible and liable to pay for any past and future arrears (and any interest if applicable) that may have accumulated over time as a result of his non-compliance. The respondent is fully entitled to take enforcement action against him if payment is not forthcoming.