Pullman and Pullman (No 3)

In *Pullman & Pullman (No. 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother for a six-month adjournment of a part-heard trial concerning parenting orders. The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the adjournment. The proceedings had commenced in June 2011, with the substantive trial beginning in June 2012 and being adjourned due to the mother's distress. Interim orders had been made, and the trial was scheduled to resume on 8 November 2012.

The mother sought the adjournment on two primary grounds: firstly, that she lacked the mental capacity to participate in the proceedings and wished to commence treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder; and secondly, that an adjournment would allow for further settlement negotiations. The court was required to determine whether the mother’s application for an adjournment was justified, considering the expert evidence regarding her mental state, the potential duration and success of treatment, and the overarching principles of avoiding undue delay and ensuring the efficient use of public resources, particularly in matters involving children.

The court dismissed the mother's adjournment application. It found that while the mother met the diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder, the expert evidence indicated that any effective treatment would last at least 12 months and offered no guarantee of success. The court also noted that the mother had demonstrated sufficient cognitive capacity to understand the proceedings and instruct her lawyers. Distinguishing the present case from *Naczek & Dowler* and *Storey & Storey*, the court emphasised that avoiding undue delay and efficiently using public resources, as highlighted in *Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University*, were paramount. The court concluded that the mother's concerns about her capacity to instruct lawyers or her potential for an unfavourable outcome were not persuasive grounds for further delay, especially given the proceedings had already been ongoing for 18 months and involved significant interruptions.

The court ordered that the mother's application for an adjournment be dismissed and that any outstanding interlocutory applications be dismissed. The trial was to resume on the available evidence. The court noted that the mother could make a fresh application for parenting orders in the future should her circumstances change, such as through sustained recovery from any psychological affliction.