Balaskas & Stratos (No 2)

This matter concerned an application by the respondent wife for a stay of orders made by Judge Neville on 28 January 2021, following a de facto relationship of approximately 10 years. The wife had filed an appeal against those orders, which the court accepted was bona fide and that she had a genuine grievance. The parties' financial positions were significantly disparate, with the wife possessing assets exceeding $24 million and the husband's assets totalling approximately $15,000 with liabilities of $47,932.

The primary legal issue before Howe J was whether to grant the wife's application for a stay of the existing orders pending the determination of her appeal. This required the court to consider the established principles governing applications for a stay of discretionary judgments, particularly within the context of family law proceedings.

Howe J applied the principles outlined in *Aldridge v Keaton (Stay Appeal)* (2009) FamCAFC 106, which emphasise that an appellate court should be slow to interfere with a primary judge's discretionary decision unless it is plainly wrong. The court considered the onus on the applicant to establish a proper basis for the stay, the entitlement of a judgment holder to the benefit of their judgment, and the need to avoid rendering an appeal nugatory. The court also referred to the principles from *Gronow v Gronow* (1979) 144 CLR 513, highlighting that an appellate court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the trial judge merely because it would have arrived at a different conclusion, especially where the decision involves assessing the weight of evidence and the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses.

The court ordered that the wife's Application in a Case filed on 16 February 2021 be dismissed, and costs were reserved.