Wold & Kleppir (No. 4)

In the matter of *Wold & Kleppir (No. 4)*, heard before Barry J of the Family Court of Australia, the husband sought to adjourn the trial and disqualify the judge. The dispute concerned family law matters, and the husband's applications were based on his alleged inability to review the court file and a perceived bias on the part of the judge.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues: firstly, whether the husband had established sufficient grounds for an adjournment of the trial, and secondly, whether the judge should be disqualified from hearing the matter due to apprehended bias. The husband's application for adjournment was predicated on his unsuccessful attempts to access the court file, while his application for disqualification stemmed from a finding made by the judge regarding the husband's credibility prior to the commencement of the trial.

On the issue of adjournment, Barry J held that the husband had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment. The court noted that the husband was already in possession of the relevant court documents, and therefore, his inability to access the court file did not occasion prejudice. Furthermore, the court emphasised that parties could not rely on their own non-compliance with court orders to justify an adjournment. Regarding the application for disqualification, Barry J applied the principles established in *Re JRL; Ex Parte CJL* (1986) 161 CLR 342, stating that a judge's preference for some evidence does not necessarily indicate that all evidence will not be treated impartially. The judge concluded that the husband had not established a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Both the application for adjournment and the application for disqualification were dismissed by the court. No formal orders were taken out following the decision.