Anthony and Anthony

In the Family Court of Australia at Sydney, Judicial Registrar Johnston heard an application by the husband seeking an adjournment of substantive property proceedings between himself and the wife. The husband contended that a significant anticipated change in his financial circumstances, specifically a substantial inheritance the wife was likely to receive, meant the Court would be unable to achieve justice between the parties without such an adjournment. The parties had separated in 2004 after a long marriage, during which two children were born.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the husband had established sufficient grounds to warrant an adjournment of the property proceedings. This involved considering the potential impact of the wife's likely inheritance from her elderly aunt, who was the major beneficiary of a will and suffered from a serious medical condition, on the Court's ability to do justice between the parties under the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 79(5). The husband argued that the Court's capacity to achieve a just outcome would be compromised if the proceedings were not delayed until the inheritance was received.

Judicial Registrar Johnston dismissed the husband's application for adjournment. His Honour reasoned that while the anticipated inheritance was substantial, the Court retained the capacity to do justice between the parties with the existing property pool of approximately $1.2 to $1.3 million. The Registrar distinguished the present case from *Grace v Grace*, where an adjournment was granted due to a lack of existing property to facilitate a just outcome. In this instance, the Registrar found that the potential inheritance could be adequately addressed within the framework of section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and that the husband had not satisfied the requirements of section 79(5) to justify the lengthy adjournment sought.

The Court ordered that the husband's application for adjournment be dismissed. Further orders were made for the parties to attend a Pre-Trial Conference, extended the time for filing affidavits, and required the forwarding of compliance certificates. Costs were reserved, and a previously scheduled date was vacated. Crucially, the Judicial Registrar also made an order disqualifying himself from hearing the substantive property proceedings.