Manuel and Stevenson

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Manuel (the applicant) and Mr Stevenson (the respondent) were involved in proceedings concerning property settlement under section 79 and an application to vary existing orders under section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The core dispute revolved around whether these two sets of proceedings should be heard together or separately.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to determine the section 79A factors separately from the section 79 proceedings. The Court was required to consider its obligation to satisfy itself that a miscarriage of justice had occurred under section 79A(1)(a) before exercising its discretion to vary orders, and how this process interacted with the subsequent determination of property under section 79, particularly in light of the High Court's decision in *Stanford & Stanford*. The Court also had to consider the need to reduce costs and simplify matters for the parties and itself.

Justice Dawe acknowledged the potential benefit of determining the section 79A factors first, which involves establishing a miscarriage of justice and then considering the discretion to vary orders. However, the Court also recognised the practical advantage of understanding the parties' current financial positions and the wife's potential section 79 claim before making a final determination on the procedural approach. The Court noted its discretion to hear individual factors at any stage and its obligation to consider processes that reduce costs and simplify proceedings. Consequently, the Court declined to make a definitive determination at that stage regarding the bifurcation of the section 79A and section 79 proceedings, indicating an inclination towards a hearing to establish the facts for the section 79A discretion before considering the joinder of the section 79 proceedings. The proceedings were adjourned.