Strahan and Strahan (No 5)

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Strahan & Strahan (No. 5)*, considered applications by the wife concerning the adjournment of a final property hearing and the release of funds held in trust. The wife, having recently engaged new legal representation, sought to vacate the scheduled final hearing, which was due to commence after approximately 12 years of interlocutory proceedings, and have it relisted for March 2018 or later. She also sought to vary a previous order to allow her solicitors to be paid from funds held on trust by the husband's solicitor as their accounts were rendered, rather than upon the conclusion of the final hearing. The husband opposed both applications.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's applications for a significant adjournment of the final hearing and for variation of the litigation funding order. Central to these determinations was the wife's assertion that she needed further time to gather documents which she believed would demonstrate the husband's lack of candour regarding his assets, and her claim that her current health issues and the financial difficulties of her legal team necessitated these requests. The court also had to consider the principles governing adjournments, particularly in light of the extensive history of the proceedings and the wife's numerous changes in legal representation.

Justice Cronin, in his reasoning, acknowledged the wife's health concerns and her desire to present evidence of the husband's alleged lack of candour, referring to this as a potential "smoking gun." However, he noted the protracted history of the case, the wife's previous opportunities to prepare her case, and the significant indulgences already granted. Applying principles from *Forster & Forster* and *Aon Risk Services Australia Limited & Australian National University*, the court found that while access to justice is paramount, the wife's situation was distinguishable from cases where an adjournment was granted to a litigant-in-person who had only just obtained legal representation. The court concluded that the wife's legal team's difficulties and the wife's health issues did not, in the context of the case's history, warrant a lengthy adjournment or the variation of the funding order.

Consequently, the court dismissed the wife's application to vacate the hearing and relist it for March 2018. Instead, the final hearing was vacated from its original date and relisted for 13 November 2017, to commence as a four-day matter. The wife was ordered to file and serve any affidavit material she intended to rely upon by 4 pm on 2 November 2017. The application to vary the order regarding the release of funds from the trust account was also dismissed.