Hawkins and Hawkins (No 4)

In *Hawkins and Hawkins (No 4)*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for an adjournment of a three-day final property settlement trial that was due to commence. The wife's counsel argued that insufficient preparation time had been afforded due to the late receipt of litigation funding approximately three weeks prior, and alleged non-compliance by the husband with disclosure obligations, necessitating the issuance of subpoenas for documents yet to be filed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the wife's application for an adjournment of the trial. A secondary issue concerned the wife's oral application for further litigation funding, which was made without notice to the husband or the court and lacked necessary particulars.

Kent J granted the adjournment, finding that the husband would not be prejudiced by the delay. The court reasoned that the wife's need for further preparation time, stemming from the late funding and disclosure issues, outweighed any potential prejudice to the husband. The court also dismissed the wife's oral application for litigation funding, holding that such applications must be brought on proper notice and include details of past expenditure and proposed future use of funds.

Consequently, the trial was vacated and relisted for two days commencing on 18 January 2016. The parties were ordered to file a single affidavit of evidence-in-chief by specified dates, and a list of documents to be relied upon at trial by 11 January 2016. The costs of the adjournment were reserved.