Ting and Fingal (No. 2)

In *Ting & Fingal (No. 2)* [2013] FamCA 400, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for an adjournment in proceedings concerning spousal maintenance, where the jurisdiction of the court was in dispute. The applicant was Ms Ting and the respondent was Mr Fingal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the respondent's application for an adjournment of the hearing, which had been specifically allocated to determine the jurisdictional question. A further issue arose regarding the appropriate costs order to be made in light of the adjournment.

Justice Cronin granted the adjournment, reasoning that the respondent should be afforded an opportunity to present evidence to challenge the court's jurisdiction, particularly given the potential for new witnesses to be called. However, the court found that the respondent had not been adequately prepared for the hearing, leading to wasted costs. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs fixed at $13,100, reflecting the thrown-away costs of the hearing and the reasonable costs incurred by the applicant due to the respondent's actions. The court also certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel for the hearing.