MALVARD & CAUDLE

In *Malvard & Caudle*, heard before Judge Neville, the Applicant Husband sought leave to apply for a property settlement out of time following a 34-year relationship. The parties had reached an informal property settlement, with the Applicant Husband receiving a significantly larger sum. The Applicant Husband had allegedly represented that he would not pursue a formal settlement given this informal agreement. The Respondent Wife contended that she made significant financial decisions post-separation in reliance on this informal arrangement.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the Applicant Husband leave to commence proceedings for a property settlement out of time, pursuant to section 44(6) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider whether hardship would be occasioned to a party if leave were not granted, and conversely, whether hardship would be occasioned to a party if leave were granted.

Judge Neville dismissed the Applicant Husband's application, finding that he had not established any hardship that would warrant granting leave. Conversely, the court found that allowing the application to proceed would likely cause significant hardship to the Respondent Wife, who had acted in reliance on the informal settlement. The court applied the principles governing applications for leave to proceed out of time, emphasising the need to balance the interests of both parties and the potential for prejudice.

Consequently, the court ordered that the Applicant's Initiating Application be dismissed, with the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs. All extant applications were dismissed, and the matter was finalised.