NORRIS & DENIS

The parties, Mr Norris and Ms Denis, were involved in family law proceedings concerning property settlement. Ms Denis, who was self-represented, sought an adjournment of the final hearing to obtain legal representation. The primary dispute before the court was whether to grant this adjournment and, if so, on what terms, including the issue of costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant Ms Denis's application for an adjournment of the final hearing. This required the court to consider the principles governing adjournments in family law proceedings, particularly in circumstances where a party is self-represented and seeks legal representation at a late stage. The court also had to determine the appropriate orders regarding costs, given the potential impact of an adjournment on the progression of the matter.

Kemp J considered the principles of fairness and the need for parties to have adequate opportunity to present their case. His Honour noted that while parties have a right to legal representation, this right must be balanced against the court's duty to manage its list efficiently and avoid undue delay. The court weighed the prejudice to Ms Denis if the hearing proceeded without legal representation against the prejudice to Mr Norris and the court if an adjournment were granted. Ultimately, Kemp J determined that an adjournment was warranted to ensure procedural fairness, but that Ms Denis should bear the costs occasioned by the adjournment due to the lateness of her application and the lack of compelling reasons for the delay in seeking representation.