Zau and Uong (No. 2)

In *Zau and Uong (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an oral application for an adjournment made by the applicant, Ms Zau. The proceedings involved two distinct matters: an application for a declaration under section 90RD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and an application for leave to continue an application to set aside parenting orders made in 2005, which invoked the principles established in *Rice & Asplund*.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the applicant's request for an adjournment of the proceedings. The applicant sought the adjournment to allow for time with the child of the parties, who was 15 years of age, and to address difficulties she was experiencing with her case materials. The application was made orally on the day of the hearing, and the respondent had not been informed of the proposed application prior to its submission.

Justice Cronin refused the application for adjournment, finding no basis to grant it. The court noted the history of the proceedings, which had been ongoing since May 2012, with multiple orders made for the applicant to file and serve further material. The judge emphasised that the material before the court was what it was and should be determined on that basis. The applicant's decision to seek an adjournment was made the previous day and communicated to the court and the respondent only on the morning of the hearing. The court also noted that an interpreter had been provided for the applicant at the community's expense.

The application for an adjournment was refused.