BECKERT & BECKERT (No.2)

This matter concerned parenting and property applications between the applicant and respondent father. The respondent sought an adjournment of the trial, which had been scheduled for ten days, citing a comprehensive failure to observe court directions. The dispute also involved allegations of financial non-disclosure and unilateral withdrawal of funds from the applicant's account and a self-managed superannuation fund. The parties had previously agreed to the transfer of the proceeding to the Family Court.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the adjournment sought by the respondent, considering the best interests of the children and the respondent's failure to comply with previous orders. Further issues included the need for directions to promote the progress of the proceeding, the respondent's failure to particularise his sought orders in relation to parenting or property, and the proper management of financial disclosure and the parties' superannuation interests. The court also had to address the issue of costs.

Judge A Kelly granted the adjournment of the trial and ordered the transfer of the proceeding to the Family Court of Australia. The court granted the applicant leave to file an amended initiating application and imposed detailed directions on the respondent regarding the filing of a response, affidavits addressing specific matters, an updated financial statement, and an outline of his case. The court also made specific orders concerning the preparation of taxation returns and financial statements for a family trust, the engagement of an accountant to assess the compliance of the parties' self-managed superannuation fund, and the payment of associated fees from funds held on trust. Further orders addressed the lodging of personal and company taxation returns, interim distributions of funds, and the holding of remaining balances in controlled monies accounts. The court also directed the parties to exchange lists of requested documents and to respond to such requests within a specified timeframe, with a provision for the proceeding to be heard on an undefended basis in default of compliance. Finally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the vacated trial in the sum of $15,000.