Sebastian and Sebastian

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Sebastian & Sebastian*, heard an interim application concerning children and parenting issues, as well as property and financial proceedings. Ms Sebastian was the applicant, and Mr Sebastian was the respondent. Timothy Mulvany acted as the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL). The court was tasked with determining the appropriate case management and direction orders for the upcoming hearings, particularly in light of the parties' apparent lack of preparedness for the scheduled final defended hearing.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to split the final hearing of children and parenting matters from the property and financial proceedings, and to establish a revised timetable for the preparation and filing of necessary documents. The court also considered the urgency of certain interim children's issues raised by the ICL and the readiness of the parties to proceed with the property dispute, given the lack of filed applications, affidavits, and updated financial statements despite previous orders and a vacated hearing date.

Justice Young, having managed the case for a considerable period, acknowledged the parties' and their legal advisors' failure to adhere to previous timetables. Despite his initial inclination to hear all matters together, he reluctantly agreed to split the proceedings, prioritising the property and financial matters due to the significant weight given to the ICL's submission that finalising these issues would be in the children's best interests. The court also decided to hold a one-day interim hearing for specific children's issues on the papers and submissions, with a right to file limited affidavits.

Consequently, the court made detailed orders for the filing of amended applications, responses, trial affidavits, updated financial statements, and case outlines, setting strict deadlines for each. A case management mention was scheduled to ensure compliance, and the property and financial proceedings were listed for a final defended hearing commencing shortly after the interim children's hearing. The court emphasised the importance of timely disclosure and adherence to the new timetable, noting that any inconvenience would likely fall on the party lacking financial knowledge.