Argyle and Argyle

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Argyle & Argyle*, heard an application by the husband for an adjournment of substantive property proceedings. The wife and interveners (Mr C, Mr B, Ms D, and Mr E, who sought payment of money from the husband) opposed the adjournment. The husband sought the adjournment on the basis that his solicitor had ceased to act for him shortly before the trial, leaving insufficient time to prepare his case.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the husband's application for an adjournment, thereby allowing him time to prepare his defence, or to permit the wife to proceed on an undefended basis. This required the Court to consider the husband's conduct in relation to court orders and the potential prejudice to the other parties if the matter were further delayed.

Justice Johnston dismissed the husband's application for an adjournment. The Court noted that the husband had a history of non-compliance with court orders, having failed to file a substantive response or financial statement despite numerous directions over a significant period. The Court emphasised the duty of parties to make full and frank disclosure and to comply with court orders, referencing authorities such as *Oriolo & Oriolo* and *Black & Kellner*. The Court found that granting the adjournment would be unfair to the wife and interveners, who were ready to proceed and had been for some time, and that the husband had ample opportunity to comply with his obligations.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the husband's application for an adjournment be dismissed and granted the wife leave to proceed on an undefended basis.