ERINGTON & ERINGTON

In *Erington & Erington*, McEvoy J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for leave to proceed on an undefended basis against the wife, and a related property settlement dispute. The wife had repeatedly failed to comply with previous court orders, including the filing of necessary material, and had been put on notice that the matter might proceed undefended if such non-compliance continued.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the husband leave to proceed on an undefended basis, and whether it would be just and equitable to alter the parties' existing property interests, which primarily comprised debts and superannuation entitlements. The husband argued that no adjustment should be made to the parties' property interests, particularly given the wife's conduct throughout the proceedings.

McEvoy J reasoned that the wife's persistent failure to comply with court orders, despite clear warnings, justified granting the husband leave to proceed on an undefended basis. Regarding the property settlement, the court found that once a previous part property settlement paid to the wife was accounted for, there was little difference between the parties' superannuation interests. Furthermore, the court considered the significant costs incurred by the husband in finalising the matter, which were exacerbated by the wife's conduct. In light of these circumstances, the court concluded that it would not be just and equitable to alter the parties' property interests.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party retain their respective superannuation entitlements and other property in their possession. The husband was substituted as the sole appointor for his business entities, with provisions made for the Registrar to execute documents on the wife's behalf if she failed to do so. All other extant applications were dismissed.