Boswell and Boswell (No 3)

In *Boswell and Boswell (No 3)*, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning case management decisions made by Bennett J. The dispute arose from an application for an adjournment and the court's power to order indirect cross-examination in family violence proceedings prior to the commencement of section 102NA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also addressed the propriety of abridging the return date and service times for subpoenas, particularly when those subpoenas were to be returnable on a date when each parent's case was anticipated to be closed.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether Bennett J erred in dismissing the adjournment application, and whether she possessed the power to order indirect cross-examination in the circumstances presented. Furthermore, the court was required to determine if the directions regarding the subpoenas were appropriate and lawful, given the timing of their return in relation to the anticipated closure of the parties' cases.

The Full Court held that Bennett J had not erred in dismissing the adjournment application. Regarding indirect cross-examination, the Court affirmed that the Family Court retained an inherent jurisdiction to order indirect cross-examination in family violence proceedings, even before the commencement of section 102NA of the *Family Law Act*. This power was considered a necessary measure to protect vulnerable parties and children from the trauma of direct cross-examination by an abusive party. The Court also found that the directions concerning the subpoenas were within the court's case management powers, aimed at ensuring the efficient progression of the proceedings.