Wilan and Wilan

The Family Court of Australia heard a dispute between Mr Wilan (the applicant father) and Ms Wilan (the respondent mother) concerning parenting orders. The father sought an adjournment of the trial for two months due to a personal commitment, but failed to serve this application on the other parties and was not present on the first day of the trial.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the father's application for an adjournment and, in light of his conduct, the fate of his initiating application and application in a case. The court also considered the overarching principle that child-related proceedings should be brought to an end as quickly as possible to provide certainty for the child, as mandated by section 69ZN of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Murphy reasoned that the father's repeated failures to comply with earlier orders, his lack of service of the adjournment application, and his absence from the trial demonstrated a lack of preparedness and a disregard for the court process. The judge noted that the father's application for adjournment lacked sufficient detail, with the father refusing to disclose the specific reasons for his absence, citing privacy concerns. Given the child's awareness of the proceedings and the distress indicated in family reports, the court found that certainty and a conclusion to the proceedings were paramount.

Consequently, the court dismissed both the father's application for an adjournment and his initiating application. The father was granted liberty to apply to relist the matter, but only upon filing an application supported by an affidavit detailing the reasons for his failure to attend the hearing and his preparedness for trial, and serving these documents on the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.