Delgado & Soto

In the matter of *Delgado & Soto*, the wife sought an extension of time to file an application for review of final property orders made by consent by a Registrar of the Family Court of Australia. The husband opposed this application. The final orders, made on 21 January 2020, had largely been implemented, with the exception of one outstanding payment which the husband indicated he would not pursue. The wife retained a business under the consent orders, which had subsequently decreased in value due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The wife also had a separate application to set aside the final orders pursuant to s 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife an extension of time to seek a review of the Registrar's decision, considering the significant delay since the final orders were made and the husband's opposition. A further issue was whether the wife would suffer an injustice if the extension was not granted, particularly in light of her alternative application under s 79A and the potential costs associated with further proceedings.

Macmillan J dismissed the wife's application for an extension of time. The court reasoned that the wife's case conflated the issues of seeking an extension for review with her application to set aside the orders. While acknowledging the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the value of the business retained by the wife, the court found that any potential benefit from a successful review or setting aside of the orders would likely be negated by the costs of litigation. The court concluded that the wife had other available remedies and would not suffer an injustice if the time for filing her review application was not extended. The court also reserved all questions of costs for determination in Chambers, directing parties to file written submissions.