GREFELD & GREFELD

In the Family Court of Australia, the applicant, Ms Grefeld, and the respondent, Mr Grefeld, were parties to property adjustment proceedings that had been dormant for almost seven years. The dispute originated in 2005, with the applicant seeking various orders concerning property interests, including declarations of trust and injunctions. The proceedings involved complex issues relating to property held by the respondent's sister, and a prior appeal to the Full Court had upheld earlier orders made by Justice Barry in 2010.

The court was required to determine the future of the proceedings, specifically whether they should be dismissed for want of prosecution. This arose after neither party had taken any substantive steps in the matter for a considerable period and had failed to comply with directions from the Senior Registrar to file minutes of proposed orders. A key consideration was the absence of any remaining assets in Australia that could be subject to property adjustment orders under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Forrest reasoned that the prolonged inactivity of the parties, particularly the applicant, coupled with their failure to comply with court orders, justified dismissal. Furthermore, the court accepted concessions from both parties that there were no assets in Australia against which any property adjustment orders could be made. The applicant had sold a property previously retained by her, using the proceeds to cover legal fees, leaving no remaining assets for distribution.

Consequently, the court ordered that the proceedings be dismissed for want of prosecution.