DEAKINS & REMUS

In the matter of DEAKINS & REMUS, heard before Judge Burchardt, the applicant husband sought an adjournment at the commencement of the trial. The court considered the husband's repeated failure to participate in the proceedings and determined that an adjournment was not appropriate, proceeding with the matter undefended. The court then considered the contributions and future needs of the parties, ultimately making orders for a 63/37 division of non-superannuation assets in favour of the wife and an equalisation of superannuation entitlements, finding this division to be just and equitable.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the husband's application for an adjournment, given his history of non-participation, and how to achieve a just and equitable division of the parties' property and financial resources, taking into account their respective contributions and future needs. The court was required to determine the appropriate allocation of various assets, including real property, superannuation interests, and other financial resources, as well as the division of debts.

The court reasoned that the husband's persistent failure to engage with the legal process, despite opportunities to do so, meant that granting an adjournment would unduly delay the finalisation of the proceedings and was not in the interests of justice. In determining the property division, the court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering the contributions of each party to the marriage and their future needs. The court's orders reflect a detailed division of assets, including the sale of a property, the distribution of proceeds, the retention of other properties, and a specific split of superannuation interests, with provisions for the payment of debts and costs.