Aldana & Redstone

In the matter of *Aldana & Redstone*, heard by Judge B Smith in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the applicant wife sought an undefended hearing in a property settlement matter that had been ongoing for three years. At a compliance check hearing, the applicant was ready to proceed, but the respondent husband had failed to file any documents or provide an explanation for his non-compliance with previous directions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to have the matter proceed as an undefended hearing, given the respondent's prolonged delay and lack of satisfactory explanation for his non-compliance. The court was required to consider the applicant's right to have her matter resolved after three years and the efficient use of court resources in light of the respondent's conduct.

Judge B Smith reasoned that the respondent, a legal professional, had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to comply with court directions, particularly his engagement in a trial for six days within the ten-week period allocated for compliance. The court considered that after three years, the applicant was entitled to a final hearing rather than further procedural steps. The court also took into account the impact on other litigants and the use of public resources.

Consequently, the court ordered that the matter be listed for an undefended hearing on 23 February 2021. The order also stipulated that any applications or objections made between the date of the order and the hearing would not be heard on that date without express leave.