Sheridan and Sheridan (No. 2)

This matter came before the Family Court of Australia, with Ms Sheridan as the applicant and Mr Sheridan as the respondent. The proceedings concerned the finalisation of property settlement orders, which had been outstanding for a considerable period and had been re-opened on previous occasions due to changes in the parties' circumstances. The hearing was adjourned due to the husband's application for an adjournment based on alleged injuries preventing his effective participation, and also due to new and significant information contained in an affidavit filed by the wife on the day of the hearing.

The court was required to determine whether to grant an adjournment of the hearing and, if so, to make interim orders to address the immediate issues arising from the parties' circumstances and the new evidence. Specifically, the court needed to consider the husband's physical capacity to participate in the proceedings, the need for the wife to respond to serious allegations raised in her affidavit, and the management of various financial and property-related matters during the adjournment period. The legal issues also encompassed the appropriate disclosure of financial information and the potential for adverse inferences to be drawn from non-compliance with court orders.

Justice Dawe granted the adjournment, noting that the husband's medical certificate raised genuine concerns about his ability to participate, and that the wife's new affidavit introduced substantial matters requiring a response from the husband. The court applied principles of procedural fairness, ensuring both parties had an adequate opportunity to present their cases and respond to new evidence. Interim orders were made, including restraining the husband from attending the Town E property except in the company of police, authorising the wife to arrange cleaning and repairs to that property at the husband's expense, and continuing a garnishee order over the husband's WorkCover payments to meet mortgage obligations. The court also ordered the husband to disclose further financial information and extended timeframes for compliance with previous orders, warning that failure to comply could lead to adverse conclusions. The hearing was adjourned for three further days in September 2013.