CHANG & MALLESON

In the Family Court of Australia, Kent J considered applications concerning property settlement between the Applicant and the Respondent. The dispute involved interim property orders, an application for permission to adduce expert evidence, and a request for an expedited trial of final financial proceedings. A key element of the proceedings was the Respondent's alleged breach of existing financial orders.

The court was required to determine whether the Respondent, who was in breach of prior financial orders, should be heard on the Applicant's applications for further orders. Additionally, the court had to consider whether permission should be granted for the Applicant to adduce expert evidence, and whether the case for interim orders had been made out given competing evidence that could not be adequately tested at an interim hearing. The court also considered the Applicant's request for an expedited trial of the final financial proceedings.

Kent J approached the matter by considering the Respondent's breach of financial orders. The court determined that the case for interim orders was not made out on the competing evidence presented, which required resolution at a trial. Consequently, the court granted permission for the Applicant to adduce the evidence of Mr P. The court dismissed the Applicant's applications filed on 9 November 2011 and 23 August 2011, and the Respondent's application filed on 10 August 2011, except to the extent they were dealt with by the orders made. The costs of the interim applications were reserved to the trial judge.