Galvan and Galvan & Ors

The Family Court of Australia heard proceedings between Mr Galvan Snr (applicant) and Ms Galvan Snr (first respondent), with Ms Galvan Jnr and Mr Galvan Jnr (second and third respondents) later joined as parties. The dispute concerned property matters under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The final hearing commenced, but the subsequent joinder of the adult children as parties, who were unprepared to meet the case, necessitated an adjournment.

The court was required to determine whether to grant an adjournment of the final hearing, consider interim arrangements for the matrimonial home, and make orders regarding costs. Specifically, the court had to assess the impact of the late joinder of the adult children on the procedural fairness of the proceedings and the practicality of completing the hearing within the allocated time. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate interim measures for the matrimonial home, given the history of conflict between the parties and the property's listing for sale, and to consider an application for costs thrown away due to the adjournment.

The court granted the adjournment, reasoning that proceeding without adequate preparation by the new parties and without their counsel having sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the complex issues would be unjust and deny procedural fairness. The court noted that cross-examination of Mr Galvan Snr had already occurred before the adult children were joined, creating a disadvantage. Regarding the matrimonial home, the court refused the husband's application for both parties to reside there, citing the history of alleged assaults and apprehended violence, and instead ordered that the wife continue to occupy the home until settlement. The court appointed both Mr and Ms Galvan Snr as joint trustees for sale to facilitate the prompt sale of the property. Furthermore, the court ordered the second and third respondents to pay the first respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the adjournment, quantifying this at $11,800, and restrained the second and third respondents from disposing of or encumbering their real estate without consent or further court order.