KESKIN & KESKIN

In *Keskin & Keskin*, the husband sought to enforce an order for the sale of a property located in Country O. Both the husband and the second respondent wished to proceed with their applications for final orders on an undefended basis. However, the wife opposed this approach. The court was also aware of a final intervention order that remained in force, which would impact any cross-examination under section 102NA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The matter was listed for a final hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to proceed with the final hearing on an undefended basis, given the wife's opposition and the existence of a final intervention order. The court also had to consider the procedural requirements for conducting the hearing, particularly in light of the intervention order and the potential for cross-examination via video link.

Macmillan J determined that it was not appropriate for the matter to proceed on an undefended basis. The court directed that all extant applications for final orders be adjourned for hearing by way of a video hearing, or as otherwise advised, before Justice Macmillan on 10 August 2020. The court also made specific directions regarding electronic filing of documents, the transmission of documents during cross-examination by video link, and the application of section 102NA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to any cross-examination. Further directions were issued for the filing and service of amended responses, affidavits of evidence in chief, and financial statements by the wife, husband, and second respondent, with specific deadlines set. The court also stipulated that no further material was to be filed without leave and set out a procedure for parties to raise objections to evidence.