Application to appear via AVL — adjournment — COVID-19 — border restrictions — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 42 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 — Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 — Biggs v Biggs (2020) 25 PRNZ 331. The parties had been engaged in relationship property proceedings since 2016, and this hearing was to determine an application by the respondent for an adjournment and a cross-application by the applicant for the respondent to appear via AVL. The parties had been married and the proceedings had already been adjourned several times. The respondent now lived in Australia and had been unable to travel to New Zealand due to the border restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. He had sought a further adjournment as he had not been able to secure a place in the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities in New Zealand. The main issue in the substantive proceedings was whether the parties had been in a de facto relationship. There were 18 witnesses. Counsel for the respondent submitted that it would be a breach of the respondent's fair trial rights if he were unable to attend in person. Counsel for the applicant submitted there would be prejudice to the applicant were there to be an adjournment due to the inconvenience to her witnesses, as well as to the applicant herself; there was a notice of interest against the title of the house in question, which meant that she had been unable to dispose of it. The Judge noted the need to balance the interests of justice for both parties. The situation was that even if an adjournment were to be granted, there was no guarantee that the respondent would be able to be present given global circumstances. The Judge declined to grant an adjournment and granted the application for the respondent to appear via AVL. Judgment Date: 12 March 2021.