Adler and Adler

In the matter of *Adler and Adler*, heard before Judge Mead, the wife sought leave to institute proceedings for the settlement of property out of time, pursuant to section 44(6) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The husband opposed this application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife had established sufficient grounds to be granted an extension of time to commence property settlement proceedings, given the significant delay since the finalisation of the marriage. This required the court to consider the criteria set out in section 44(6) of the Act, which allows for such leave to be granted in specific circumstances, such as where the court is satisfied that hardship would be caused to a party or a child of the marriage if leave were not granted.

Judge Mead refused the wife's application for leave to institute proceedings out of time. The court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, would have involved an assessment of the evidence presented by the wife against the statutory requirements for granting an extension under section 44(6). The refusal indicates that the court was not satisfied that the necessary conditions for granting leave had been met, likely finding that the wife had not demonstrated sufficient hardship or other compelling reasons to overcome the substantial delay.

Consequently, the court ordered that the wife's application for leave be refused and that the application filed on 19 January 2015 be otherwise dismissed.