Peterson and Davis & Ors

In *Peterson and Davis & Ors*, Foster J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for an adjournment of proceedings. The first respondent, who was in custody and had been refused bail, was unable to attend the proceedings by phone as initially ordered under s 77 of the *Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999* (NSW) due to difficulties arising from the coronavirus pandemic.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was appropriate to grant an adjournment of the proceedings, given the first respondent's inability to participate remotely and the practical challenges presented by his custodial status during the pandemic. The Court also had to consider the implications of this inability to participate on the conduct of the proceedings and the potential for prejudice to the parties.

Foster J applied Rule 11.01 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth), which governs adjournments. The Court reasoned that the circumstances, including the first respondent's custodial status and the unforeseen difficulties in facilitating his participation by telephone, warranted an adjournment. The Court acknowledged the need to balance the efficient progression of litigation with the fundamental right of a party to participate in proceedings affecting their interests.

The Court made consent orders for the sale of a property, authorising the second respondent to manage the sale and outlining the distribution of proceeds. The Court also reserved costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment and made directions regarding the filing of submissions on costs. Further orders addressed the cross-examination of parties, noting the potential for family violence and the availability of the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme. The matter was adjourned, with liberty to relist in the event the first respondent was granted bail.