APPLEFORD & MERIDEN (No.2)

This matter concerned an appeal from final property orders made in de facto proceedings. The applicant, Appleford, had sought and been granted an extension of time to commence proceedings, followed by final adjudication which resulted in orders for the respondent, Meriden, to pay a fixed sum to the applicant. Meriden appealed these orders, contending that the trial judge had erred in exercising discretion regarding both the extension of time and the final property settlement. Meriden also sought a stay of the final orders pending the determination of the appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had miscarried in their discretion in granting the extension of time and in making the final property orders. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether a stay of the final orders should be granted pending the appeal, and if so, on what basis.

In considering the application for a stay, the court applied the principles governing such applications, which involve a consideration of the balance of hardship. The court recognised that if a stay were not granted, there was a potential for the appeal to be rendered nugatory. Accordingly, the court ordered that Order 3 made on 20 November 2018 be stayed, pending the determination of the appeal.