·   ·  664 posts
  •  ·  3859 friends

SELF-REPRESENTED HUSBAND IN A PROPERTY CASE SEEKS ADJOURNMENT

Deakins & Remus [2021] FCCA 156 (5 February 2021)

This is a property proceeding where the self-represented husband, who failed to participate in the proceeding repeatedly, seeks for the adjournment at the commencement of trial.

Facts:

This is a property proceeding intitiated by the wife. At the trial of this matter on, the respondent husband sought an adjournment.  Applicant wife opposed and sought that property orders be made on an undefended basis.

The self-represented husband’s indicated that he was seeking to have the matter adjourned so that he might obtain representation and/or consider his position. His complete lack of familiarity with legal process made it slightly difficult to understand exactly what he was saying.

Counsel for the wife then proceeded to make submissions about the adjournment application. The counsel submitted there could be no confidence the husband would attend to his affairs.  He was aware of the matter being on foot and had attended the conciliation conference.  Previous cost orders had been made but not paid.  There had been no disclosure by the husband, and the wife had been put to extra expense of reconstructing the parties’ affairs from subpoenaed documents.

Issue: Should the proceeding be adjourned?

Held:

The husband has not complied with orders to file his materials made on 16 March 2020 which he received. He did not comply with orders made on 29 April 2020 which were by consent and in his presence.  He also received the orders made on 13 November 2020 and still did not file any material.

The husband did not do anything to prepare for the conciliation conference which led to cost orders. The husband has not paid either of the cost orders made against him although the time for compliance has long past. He has offered no explanation for any of these failures. 

In all the circumstances, it is clear that the matter should not be adjourned. The court is conscious that this is a significant step inasmuch as the husband will simply not be heard, but for the reasons the court has set out above, it is appropriate to proceed on an undefended basis.

Conclusion: The court hereby denies the husband’s application.

Comments (0)
Login or Join to comment.

FLAST

Close