GREY & GREY AND ANOR

This matter came before Justice Bennett of the Family Court of Australia concerning proceedings between Ms Grey (the applicant wife) and Mr Grey (the respondent husband), with Mr B as an intervener. The dispute involved setting the matter down for a final hearing, with no party having sought to be heard on the directions for trial.

The court was required to determine the procedural steps necessary to ready the case for a final hearing, including setting a date for the hearing, establishing timelines for the filing of various documents and evidence, and outlining the required content of an "outline of case" document. The court also needed to consider the implications of parties failing to attend or comply with directions.

Justice Bennett reasoned that, given the availability of court time in February 2013 and the estimated duration of the hearing, the matter should be fixed for final hearing on 11 February 2013. The court issued detailed directions for the sequential filing of amended applications, responses, affidavit material, proofs of evidence, updated financial statements, and an outline of case. The outline of case requirements were formulated with consideration of the High Court's decision in *Stanford v Stanford* [2012] HCA 52, and included specific provisions for detailing contributions, relevant factors under section 79(4) and 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), expert evidence, and sought orders. The court also directed parties' legal representatives to provide clients with detailed cost information.

The court ordered that the matter be fixed for final hearing on 11 February 2013, with a mention date of 22 January 2013 to check readiness. Specific deadlines were set for the filing of various documents by the applicant, respondent, and intervener, including undertakings as to disclosure and updated financial statements. The court also directed the filing of an outline of case by each party by 1 February 2013, detailing their arguments and sought orders. Furthermore, legal practitioners were ordered to provide clients with a breakdown of costs by 8 February 2013. The court noted that it may proceed to determine the matter in the absence of a party who fails to attend or defaults in filing.