Bele and Vaughan (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Bele for an adjournment of a final hearing scheduled to commence on 8 December 2011. The proceedings, initiated by Mr Vaughan seeking property orders under Part VIIIAB of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning a de facto relationship, had been ongoing since October 2009. Justice Cronin had previously declared the existence and end date of the de facto relationship on 9 June 2011.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant Ms Bele's application for an adjournment of the five-day final hearing. Ms Bele argued that an adjournment was necessary due to a pending appeal against Justice Cronin's orders, which she contended raised fundamental jurisdictional issues. She submitted that the appeal, expected to be heard between February and May 2012, was of paramount importance, as its determination would impact the necessity of the property hearing. Ms Bele also raised concerns about potential prejudice, including the expense of the hearing and the irreversible nature of property sales if the appeal were successful.

Justice Le Poer Trench refused the adjournment application. The court reasoned that a significant amount of judicial and court time had already been invested in the proceedings. While acknowledging Ms Bele's concerns about potential prejudice and the inconvenience of travel, the court noted that any detriment could potentially be mitigated by ordering that any property orders made not be implemented until the appeal was determined. The court also considered Mr Vaughan's precarious financial situation and his assertion that an adjournment would cause him substantial prejudice, including the potential for further applications for interim maintenance and enforcement of existing orders. The court concluded that the parties should proceed with preparations for the hearing as scheduled.