Dorfer and Dorfer

The applicant wife sought an extension of time to review property settlement orders made by consent on 31 May 1993. The respondent husband opposed this application. The proceedings arose in the context of the husband's application to enforce the 1993 orders, with the wife also having filed an application under section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which was yet to be heard. The Judicial Registrar determined the application for an extension of time to review the consent orders as a preliminary matter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the wife leave to extend the time for filing an application to review the 1993 consent orders, which were made by a Registrar. This required the court to consider whether granting the extension would enable it to do justice between the parties, taking into account factors such as the hardship to the wife if the time was not extended, any prejudice to the husband if it was, and the adequacy of the explanation for the wife's delay. The court also considered the principles governing the review of orders made by Registrars and the general approach to applications for extensions of time in family law proceedings.

The court reasoned that while there was hardship to the wife, as the original orders might not have been made in defended proceedings and she lacked legal representation and full financial disclosure at the time, there was no adequate explanation for her delay of nearly 14 years. The court noted that the wife did not claim to have misunderstood the orders or to have been under a disability. Furthermore, granting the extension would cause prejudice to the husband, who had met his obligations under the orders and likely made decisions based on their finality over the intervening years. The court emphasised that the ultimate question was whether justice between the parties required the extension, and in this instance, the lack of an adequate explanation for the significant delay, coupled with the prejudice to the husband, outweighed the hardship to the wife.

The application for an extension of time to file a review of the orders made on 31 May 1993 was dismissed.