BASKIN & BASKIN

In the matter of *Baskin & Baskin*, heard before Macmillan J of the Family Court of Australia, the applicant wife sought final property orders against the respondent husband. However, prior to the final determination of the substantive property dispute, an application was made to substitute the respondent husband's administrator, Ms Baskin, as a party to the proceedings, given the husband's passing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings for property settlement could continue in the absence of the respondent husband, and if so, whether the administrator of his estate should be substituted as the respondent. The court was required to consider the implications of the husband's death on the continuation of the property settlement proceedings and the appropriate procedural steps to be taken.

Macmillan J applied Rule 6.15(3) of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth), which permits the substitution of a party where a respondent dies during the course of proceedings. The court determined that the administrator of the deceased husband's estate was the appropriate party to be substituted. However, the court also considered the practicalities and the stage of the proceedings, ultimately dismissing both the wife's Amended Initiating Application and the husband's Response, and removing the matter from the court's hearing list. This outcome suggests that the court found it inappropriate to proceed with the property settlement in these circumstances following the husband's death and the substitution of his administrator.