RICKERT & RICKERT

In *Rickert & Rickert*, the husband sought to amend an interim application at the commencement of a hearing. The original application concerned a partial property settlement, but the amended orders additionally sought litigation funding pursuant to sections 114 and 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The wife's legal representatives had not been served with the amended minute of orders in accordance with the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband's application to amend his interim orders should be granted, particularly in light of the non-compliance with the Family Law Rules regarding service and the potential impact on the wife's right to procedural fairness.

McClelland DCJ determined that the reasons provided by the husband were insufficient to justify overriding the wife's right to procedural fairness. The court applied the principles of procedural fairness, which require parties to be adequately notified of applications and afforded an opportunity to respond. The failure to properly serve the amended orders meant the wife had not had this opportunity.

Consequently, the husband's application to amend the interim orders was dismissed.