Skinner and Cluny

In the matter of *Skinner and Cluny*, Kent J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent concerning property proceedings. The specific nature of the property dispute is not detailed, but the orders indicate a need for clarification of the relief sought by the parties.

The court was required to determine the appropriate procedural steps to ensure the efficient and clear progression of the property proceedings. This involved addressing the specificity of the orders sought by the Respondent and setting a timetable for the parties to amend their pleadings and provide case outlines. The court also needed to manage the disclosure of documents obtained via subpoena.

Kent J ordered that the Respondent provide specific details of the orders sought, as currently appearing in paragraphs 21 and 22 of Exhibit 1, by way of an Amended Case Information Document. The property proceedings were adjourned for allocation of a further trial date. Parties were granted leave to inspect documents produced by Vodafone under subpoena. Further, the Applicant was ordered to file and serve an Amended Application within fourteen days, with the Respondent to file and serve an Amended Response within fourteen days of that. Finally, the Applicant was to file and serve a Case Outline within twenty-one days of the Amended Response, and the Respondent was to file and serve their Case Outline within seven days of the Applicant's filing.