Goldman and Goldman

In *Goldman and Goldman*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, the husband sought an adjournment of proceedings concerning property settlement. The dispute arose from a section 86 agreement entered into in 1992, which the husband alleged was a sham designed to defraud creditors, and that he and the wife had not genuinely separated at the time of its execution. The wife disputed these claims and did not consent to the agreement being set aside.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the husband's application for an adjournment, and in doing so, to consider the husband's ability to institute proceedings for property settlement given the time that had elapsed since the section 86 agreement and his subsequent bankruptcy. The court also had to determine the terms upon which any adjournment might be granted, particularly in light of the wife's potential prejudice and the husband's history of inconsistent sworn statements.

Justice Barry granted the adjournment, albeit reluctantly, noting significant concerns about the husband's bona fides, particularly his contradictory sworn statements regarding separation and his alleged perjury. The court applied the principles governing the setting aside of maintenance agreements under section 86(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which requires proof of fraud, undue influence, or mutual desire to set aside the agreement. While acknowledging the husband's claims, the court found that the wife's prejudice could be minimised through cost orders and conditions attached to the adjournment. The court also discharged a consent order restraining the wife from dealing with property and her business, and ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of the adjournment, deliver a signed withdrawal of caveat, and file affidavits from his intended witnesses within specified timeframes, failing which his application would be dismissed.