Fallon and Stirrat

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Fallon & Stirrat*, heard an application by the Applicant Father, Mr Fallon, for an adjournment of a trial that had been scheduled for two days. The Respondent Mother, Ms Stirrat, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer both opposed the adjournment.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the adjournment application. Key legal issues included the principles governing the conduct of child-related proceedings under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the needs of children, the active management of proceedings, the promotion of cooperative parenting, and the avoidance of undue delay. The court also considered the impact of potential international relocation of the children on the proceedings and the best interests of the children.

Justice Kent rejected the adjournment application, reasoning that the Father had initiated the proceedings six months prior and had been aware of the proposed international relocations for a significant period. The court noted that the trial dates had been specifically accommodated due to the judge's case management role, and that the Father's representatives had not indicated any inability to proceed at the time the dates were confirmed. Furthermore, the Father had not offered to pay the costs thrown away by an adjournment, which would include the costs of the Mother and the publicly funded Independent Children’s Lawyer. The court emphasised the principles under section 69ZN of the *Family Law Act*, highlighting the need to consider the children's needs, avoid undue delay, and manage proceedings actively. Given the children's awareness of the proceedings and the potential negative impact of further uncertainty, particularly for the older children, and considering the practical difficulties in re-listing the matter, the application was refused.