AKBAR & AKBAR

[2016] FamCA 309

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AKBAR & AKBAR [2016] FamCA 309

FAMILY LAW – Adjournment refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Akbar

RESPONDENT: Mr Akbar

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1699 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 6 April 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 6 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Tulloch

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Dominic Esposito Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Balot

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Balot Reilly and Associates

Orders

1. The application for the adjournment is refused.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Akbar & Akbar has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1699 of 2015

Ms Akbar

Applicant

And

Mr Akbar

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application that seeks a raft of financial orders.  I have heard argument prior to the luncheon break about the husband’s position, and in that, he seeks an adjournment of the proceedings for, he says, two weeks or thereabouts.  The significance of this particular case is that the application by the wife is replete with discovery requests, there is the spousal maintenance and a lump sum payment issue as well. 

2. The matter came before Bennett J in the judicial duty list in the first week of March.  The husband had been served on 16 February, so by that stage he had had three weeks notification of the date of hearing and the nature of the wife’s application.

3. I do not know what happened on that day save that the court record shows that Bennett J adjourned the matter to today and made specific orders for the filing of material.  Albeit that that husband has not complied with the order by only a few days the reality is that he now seeks another adjournment.  His solicitor has indicated today that the husband has now put him in some funds and that, to use his words, the documentation, which is necessary for compliance with not only the rules but the court orders is “80 per cent” done. 

4. Counsel has been engaged, and I am told that she desires a further two weeks to complete the necessary tasks.

5. All of those are, in my view, not relevant to the question of an adjournment.  That is because the obligation was on the husband to have all of his material filed prior to the hearing before Bennett J.  An adjournment was granted on that day to enable the case to be determined today.  Here we are again, a month later, and the husband has still not complied.  The solicitor for the husband points to a number of things arising out of the orders of Bennett J to indicate that compliance at least with the payments of things such as the spousal maintenance were met.

6. Her Honour made an order no doubt drawn by the parties that the payment was to be $500 per week.  The difficulty with that is that the wife’s application was for two and a half thousand dollars.  I am not in a position to determine whether or not the wife’s application is appropriate on an adjournment application.  The husband through his solicitor points to the fact that there are 15 properties in this case but only four are bringing in rental.  He accuses the wife of stalling so that the properties cannot be sold.  All of those are matters that could well and truly have been resolved had the husband filed his material for the March hearing, let alone this one.

7. It seems to me that there is no basis for the husband to resist the matter proceeding today and he needs to do the best he can with what little information he can legitimately provide to the Court. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 6 April 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  5 May 2016