Khattar v Khattar; Fayad v Khattar

In the proceedings of *Khattar v Khattar* and *Fayad v Khattar*, the appellants sought to vacate scheduled hearing dates due to the unavailability of their counsel. The dispute concerned an appeal, and the application to vacate the hearing was heard by Griffiths AJA.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the application to vacate the hearing dates. This required the court to consider the circumstances presented by the appellants, specifically the illness of their counsel and their inability to attend the hearing either in person or via AVL.

Griffiths AJA granted the application to vacate the hearing dates. The court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, implicitly acknowledged that the unavailability of counsel due to illness constituted sufficient grounds to postpone the proceedings. The court applied the principle that justice requires parties to have adequate representation, and that unforeseen circumstances preventing counsel's attendance can justify vacating scheduled hearings.

Consequently, the hearing dates of 17 and 18 November 2022 were vacated in both proceedings. The appeals were subsequently listed for directions before the Registrar on a date to be advised. In *Fayad v Khattar*, a notice of motion filed on 15 November 2022 was also allowed.