Fryer and Fryer

The applicant wife sought a Warrant for Possession of the former matrimonial home pursuant to rule 20.54 of the Family Law Rules 2004, authorising an enforcement officer to give her possession of the property in accordance with prior court orders. The respondent husband, appearing in person, sought an adjournment of the wife's application. The court was required to determine whether to grant the husband's application for an adjournment.

The court considered the history of the proceedings, which included final property settlement orders made by Mushin J on 15 December 2006, requiring the husband to surrender possession of the property by 15 January 2007. This date was subsequently extended to 19 February 2007 by Mushin J on 19 January 2007, following the husband's unsuccessful application for a stay of the possession order. Despite repeated communications from the wife's solicitors, the husband had failed to vacate the property. The husband's submissions for an adjournment were based on vague assertions of "serious criminal charges" involving fraud and perjury that he claimed could affect the original judgment, and the discovery of "new evidence" in the wife's application and secreted within the property.

The court found that the husband had not provided any compelling or proper material to warrant a further adjournment. The assertions regarding criminal matters and new evidence were broad, unsubstantiated, and not presented in the required written format. The court noted that the wife's application was compelling given the background facts and the husband's continued non-compliance with court orders. The court was satisfied that the husband had received the wife's application and supporting material with sufficient notice, as required by rule 20.54.

Consequently, the court dismissed the husband's oral application for an adjournment and certified that the attendance of counsel was reasonably required for the matter.