Months, Not Days: Why a Trial-Day Adjournment Was Refused Despite a Solicitor's Illness and Disclosure Complaints

In Kotsas & Balleas [2026] FedCFamC2F 1180, the Court dealt with an oral application by the respondent, made on the first day of a final property hearing, to adjourn the trial because his solicitor had been ill and because he said the applicant had not disclosed documents, including bank statements and a trust deed. The result: the application was dismissed (Order 1; [11]), the trial went ahead, and the case settled on the second day ([13]). The important point is that an adjournment is weighed against the interests of justice as a whole, including the other party’s right to have the case heard and the direction in s 81 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to finally determine the parties’ financial relationships ([9]). Here, the parties had been separated for almost as long as they had lived together ([5]), an adjournment would have meant “many, many months” rather than days ([10]), the trust deed had already been provided ([6]), and the respondent had filed a detailed affidavit, so he was “not bereft of evidence” ([8]). All paragraph references below are to the judgment.

Why it matters: Many parties assume that if they are not fully ready on the first morning of trial, the Court will simply give them more time. This judgment shows why that is a risky assumption. An adjournment on the day is not a short pause. In a busy, over-listed court, it can push the case back many months and displace other families who have been waiting for their own hearings ([10]). The Court weighs that cost, and the cost of further delay to the other party, against the reasons for asking.

🧩 Facts and Issues

The parties and the proceedings

The parties began a de facto relationship in or about August 2021. They never married, and they separated in April 2024, so they lived together for “a bit more than two and a half years but less than three” ([2]).
Ms Kotsas started the proceedings on 11 August 2025 ([2]). The judgment is published under a pseudonym with approval under s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act (cover notes).
The final hearing was before Judge O’Shannessy in Dandenong on 30 July 2026 (cover page). The reasons were given ex tempore (orally, straight after the hearing) and later settled from the transcript ([1]).

What the property case was about

Ms Kotsas’s primary aim was orders that would allow Mr Balleas to be removed as a co-borrower of money borrowed on the security of two properties, the Town B property and the Suburb C property ([2]).
It appeared undisputed that, before the relationship, Ms Kotsas and her previous partner or husband owned the Town B property and, as the judge understood it, the Suburb C property ([2]).
Early in the relationship, Mr Balleas became a party to borrowings of about $830,000. These refinanced the existing borrowings of Ms Kotsas and her previous partner. Mr Balleas said he had to be part of the refinance so the lender would advance further funds, including about $370,000 to pay out the previous partner’s agreed interest ([3]).
The parties disputed their respective contributions, but it was not disputed that Mr Balleas had taken on substantial debt ([3]).
It was common ground that Mr Balleas had lived in the Suburb C property (a modest “flat”) for some years without paying the mortgage ([4]). The judge noted it “may be the case” that the debt had since been rearranged so it was secured only on the Town B property ([4]).
Mr Balleas did not appear to resist being taken off the mortgage in these proceedings, although Ms Kotsas alleged that he had resisted it while the parties were together ([4]). The judgment makes no finding about that allegation.

The adjournment application

On the first day of the final hearing, Mr Balleas applied orally to adjourn it (Order 1; catchwords). He relied on two grounds ([6]):

He had been disadvantaged in detailed preparation for the final hearing by his solicitor’s illness.
He had been disadvantaged by non-disclosure by Ms Kotsas of a number of things, including bank statements and, in particular, details of a trust deed.

Issue

Should the final hearing be adjourned, or should it go ahead ([9]–[11])?

⚖️ Applicable Law – Legislation, Regulations, Rules

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 81: the judge set out the section, which directs that in proceedings under that Part (other than the excluded kinds), the court shall, “as far as practicable, make such orders as will finally determine the financial relationships between the parties … and avoid further proceedings between them” ([9]).
The interests of justice: the judge said he had to balance the interests of justice, including Ms Kotsas’s right to have the case heard, together with the direction in s 81 ([9]–[10]).
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part XIVB and s 114Q(2): the publication restrictions and the approval of the pseudonym (cover notes).

📌 Precedents Relied On

The reasons do not cite any case law. The decision rests on the interests of justice, the direction in s 81 of the Family Law Act, and the judge’s assessment of the facts ([9]–[11]).

🧠 Analysis

Issue

Mr Balleas said he was not ready because his solicitor had been ill and because documents had not been disclosed. Was that enough to adjourn a final hearing on its first day?

Rule

Interests of justice. The Court balances the interests of justice, which include the other party’s right to have the case heard ([9]).
Finality. Section 81 directs the Court, as far as practicable, to make orders that finally determine the parties’ financial relationships and avoid further proceedings ([9]).

Application

The disclosure complaint had largely been answered

The main disclosure complaint was about a trust deed. The judge was satisfied that details of the trust deed had been provided recently. Ms Kotsas said this happened on 16 July 2026, two weeks before the hearing ([6]).

The judge also looked at what the deed showed on its face ([7]):

It was dated 19 August 2019, roughly two years before the relationship began.
On its face, Ms Kotsas was not the settlor, the appointor or the trustee.
She could be described as a “related beneficiary”, because her adult children from a previous relationship were specified beneficiaries.

Be careful not to overstate this part. The judge did not make a final finding about the trust or its relevance to the property case. He described what the document showed “on the face of” it ([7]). The reasons also do not separately deal with the complaint about bank statements ([6]).

The solicitor’s illness had not left him without a case

The judge accepted that Mr Balleas’s solicitor had been ill, but noted what had still been done ([8]):

Mr Balleas had filed a detailed affidavit of evidence in chief, albeit late.
He had also set out his side of the story in an earlier affidavit for an interim hearing.

As the judge put it: “He is not bereft of evidence. He too needs this dispute finalised” ([8]).

Delay weighed heavily because the separation was almost as long as the relationship

The parties had separated in April 2024, and the hearing was at the end of July 2026. The time they had been separated was “just a tad shorter” than the time they had lived together ([5]). The judge said this weighed “really significantly” on him when considering the further delay an adjournment would cause ([5]).

An adjournment would mean many months, not days

This was the decisive practical point ([10]):

The adjournment “would be for many, many months and not a matter of days”, because of how the Court’s lists work.
The Court’s lists are “over listed”. If cases were listed one per day, this case probably would not have been listed yet. Cases would stretch out “for years and years” rather than the current listing period of roughly eight or nine months.
Adjourning would “likely” displace the cases of other parties who had been waiting for their hearings.

Section 81 pointed towards finality

Section 81 directs the Court, as far as practicable, to finally determine the parties’ financial relationships and avoid further proceedings ([9]). The judge weighed that direction alongside Ms Kotsas’s right to have the case heard ([9]). He was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to adjourn ([10]).

Conclusion

Balancing all those matters, the judge refused the adjournment ([11]; Order 1):

Disclosure: the trust deed details had been provided before the hearing ([6]–[7]).
Preparation: despite his solicitor’s illness, Mr Balleas had filed detailed evidence ([8]).
Delay: the parties had been separated for almost as long as they had lived together ([5]).
Listing reality: an adjournment would mean many months and would likely displace other litigants ([10]).
Finality: s 81 and Ms Kotsas’s right to have her case heard favoured going ahead ([9]).

The case settled on the second day of the trial ([13]). The reasons do not record the terms of the settlement.

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

If you need more time, ask early. This application was made orally on the first day of the final hearing (Order 1; catchwords). The judgment does not say a first-day application can never succeed, but it shows how much weighs against one ([5], [10]).
Know what an adjournment really costs. In an over-listed court, adjourning a final hearing can mean “many, many months”, not days, and can displace other families waiting for their hearings ([10]).
Delay is measured against the life of the relationship. Where the separation is almost as long as the relationship, further delay weighs heavily ([5]).
Disclosure complaints must be current and specific. By the hearing, the trust deed details had been provided ([6]). If documents are still missing, be ready to say exactly what is missing and why it matters to the case.
Being under-prepared is not the same as being unable to present your case. A party who has filed a detailed affidavit is “not bereft of evidence” ([8]).
Finality is built into the Act. Section 81 directs the Court to finally determine the parties’ financial relationships as far as practicable ([9]).
Practitioners: if illness disrupts preparation, raise it with the Court as early as possible and get the client’s evidence on file. Here, the late-filed affidavit showed the client could still run his case ([8]).
Support workers and McKenzie friends: help people treat the trial date as fixed. Here, once the trial went ahead, the case settled the next day ([13]).

“Ask early. On trial day, an adjournment can cost months, not days.”

“Being under-prepared is not the same as being unable to run your case.”

Comments (0)