Baghti and Banis & Ors

The applicant, Ms M Baghti, sought an adjournment of proceedings and leave to intervene in enforcement proceedings between Mr Banis and Mrs Banis. The court was Johnston J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute concerned whether the proceedings gave rise to a requirement under s 78B of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) to notify the Attorneys-General, and whether Ms Baghti should be permitted to intervene in enforcement proceedings following substantive property orders made under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issues were whether the proceedings involved a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation, thereby triggering the notice requirements of s 78B of the *Judiciary Act*, and whether Ms Baghti had established a sufficient basis to intervene in enforcement proceedings, particularly given that an alleged deed forming the basis of her claim was not disclosed during the substantive property proceedings. The court also considered principles of case management in determining the adjournment application.

Johnston J was not persuaded that the proceedings related to a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation, and therefore found no requirement to notify the Attorneys-General. Applying case management principles, the court determined that justice did not require an adjournment. Furthermore, the court found that Ms Baghti could not properly intervene in the enforcement proceedings, as the alleged deed had not been brought to the attention of the trial judge during the substantive proceedings.

Consequently, the court dismissed Ms Baghti's application for an adjournment and her application for leave to intervene in the enforcement proceedings. Judgment was reserved in the substantive proceedings.