GIDEON & GIDEON

This matter concerned an application by the wife to reinstate her application for leave to appeal, which had been deemed abandoned due to non-compliance with a procedural order. The original order, made in proceedings under section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), required monies held in the wife's solicitor's trust account to be held as security for the husband's costs. The wife sought leave to appeal this order, but failed to file her pre-argument statement by the required date.

The legal issues before the court were whether the wife's application for leave to appeal should be reinstated, despite the delay in seeking reinstatement and the potential impact on the substantive proceedings. The court was required to consider the reasons for the non-compliance, the length of the delay in seeking reinstatement, and the overall impact on the administration of justice.

Kay J dismissed the application for reinstatement. His Honour noted that while an office error was cited for the initial failure to file the pre-argument statement, there was no explanation for the three-and-a-half-month delay in seeking to reinstate the appeal after it was deemed abandoned. Furthermore, reinstating the appeal would further delay the substantive trial, which was already listed for February 2007. His Honour also observed that the security for costs order was not substantive, as the wife might not ultimately be required to pay any monies. Consequently, the court found it inappropriate to reinstate the application due to the significant delay, the unlikelihood of success, and the potential disruption to the court's business.