Bodilly and Hand

This matter concerned an application by Ms Bodilly against Mr Hand in the Family Court of Australia, listed for final hearing on spousal maintenance. The central dispute revolved around the applicant's need for maintenance and the extent to which she was unable to support herself adequately, with the respondent conceding he had the capacity to pay. The court was asked to consider several procedural matters, including granting leave for the respondent to file documents and evidence out of time, and whether such filings would be admissible at the final hearing.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the respondent leave to file further questions for the applicant, additional evidence from an expert regarding costings, and an affidavit from an accountant concerning the applicant's financial dealings. A further issue was whether to extend the time for the respondent to file his further amended response, his own affidavit evidence, and an updated financial statement, all of which were significantly overdue. Crucially, the court had to decide whether granting leave to file these documents constituted a determination that they could be relied upon at trial, or if that remained a matter for the trial judge.

Justice Bennett granted the respondent leave to file further questions for the applicant, further evidence from Ms S concerning costings, and an affidavit from Mr H, an accountant, by specific deadlines. The court also extended the time for the respondent to file his amended response and affidavit evidence. However, in each instance, the court explicitly stated that this leave was not a determination that the documents could be relied upon at trial, reserving that decision for the learned trial judge. The reasoning was to allow the applicant and the court to assess the potential prejudice of the belatedly filed evidence before the hearing commenced, thereby avoiding the risk of an aborted trial. The court noted that both parties had a history of non-compliance with deadlines.