Erington and Erington & Anor

The parties to this proceeding were the husband and wife, with the wife also acting as a litigant in person. The dispute concerned a range of issues including enforcement, discovery, spousal maintenance, and child maintenance. The matter came before Cronin J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interim orders sought by the wife, particularly in relation to parenting matters and property, given that creditors were pressing for payment. A key issue was whether the wife's evidence was sufficient to sustain the orders she sought, and whether the matter should proceed to trial despite the wife's opposition.

Cronin J dismissed the wife's application filed on 31 May 2017. The reasoning for this dismissal, based on the provided text, appears to stem from the wife's evidence not being sufficient to sustain the orders she sought, and the court's case management considerations, including the opposition to setting the matter down for trial. The court applied principles of case management under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and the evidential requirements for interim orders.

The application of the wife filed 31 May 2017 was dismissed.