Slocomb & Hedgewood

In the matter of Slocomb & Hedgewood, the wife sought leave to appeal a decision that refused her an extension of time to file an application for property settlement. The case came before the court following a refusal by the primary judge to grant leave to extend time under section 44(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The wife’s application was made 18 years after the divorce, and the husband opposed the application on the grounds of delay and potential prejudice.

The court was tasked with determining whether the primary judge's refusal to grant leave was justified and if the appeal could be allowed. The key issue was whether the primary judge had erred in concluding that the delay and lack of adequate explanation for it would prejudice the husband, despite acknowledging the wife's demonstrated hardship and reasonable prospects of success. The court found that the primary judge's conclusion regarding the delay had demonstrated an error of law, impacting the proper exercise of discretion and resulting in an unjust outcome.

Upon reviewing the matter, the court determined that it was appropriate to re-exercise the discretion and grant leave to the wife to file an initiating application out of time seeking property settlement orders. The appeal was allowed, and leave to appeal was granted. The wife was permitted to file and serve any initiating application seeking property orders within 21 days. Additionally, costs certificates were granted to both parties in accordance with sections 6 and 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).