The applicant wife sought an adjournment of a family law trial scheduled to commence in October 2012.
The litigation had been ongoing since 2005, with the trial previously adjourned.
The applicant argued an adjournment was necessary due to a recent document disclosure request, her new employment, and the need for time to prepare after her counsel withdrew following an unsuccessful motion for interim costs.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the disclosure request tactical, the employment issue self-created, and the withdrawal of counsel foreseeable.
The court held that granting an adjournment would cause significant non-compensable prejudice to the respondent and undermine the administration of justice.
