Sitwell & Sitwell (No. 2)

In *Sitwell & Sitwell (No. 2)*, Collier J considered an application by the husband to extend the time for compliance with an order concerning a contract for sale. The husband sought this extension on the very day the contract was due to expire if not completed. The wife also sought the husband's disqualification of the presiding Judicial Officer on grounds of actual or apprehended bias.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an extension of time could be granted for compliance with the contract for sale order. This required the court to determine whether the existing orders were final property orders or merely machinery orders. A secondary issue was whether the husband had established actual or apprehended bias on the part of the Judicial Officer.

Collier J reasoned that the orders relating to the contract for sale were final property orders. Applying established case authorities, the court held that final orders could not be interfered with except by way of appeal or under section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). As neither of these avenues was pursued, an extension of time could not be granted. The application for disqualification was also dismissed, with no finding of actual or apprehended bias being made.

Consequently, the husband's application for an extension of time was dismissed. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis, with the payment to be secured by a charge over specific land. All outstanding issues were removed from the pending cases list.