Blakeley and Jaine (No. 3)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLAKELEY & JAINE (NO. 3) [2020] FamCA 781

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – no merit in application – refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 79, 102NA
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Blakeley & Jaine (No 2) [2020] FamCA 141
Coli & Pearson [2019] FamCA 321
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Myer Emporium Ltd (No 1) (1986) 160 CLR 220
Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82
Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104
Garston & Yeo [2019] FamCAFC 56
Jackson & Balen [2009] FamCAFC 131
Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564
Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348
Medlow v Medlow (2016) 54 Fam LR 389
Pollard & Nordberg [2019] FamCA 365
Salah & Salah (2016) 56 Fam LR 299

APPLICANT: Mr Blakeley

RESPONDENT: Ms Jaine

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7125 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 21 September 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Wilson J

HEARING DATE: 16 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Not applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Not applicable

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr S. Schonell

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dorter Family Lawyers

Orders

1. I dismiss the applicant’s stay application filed on 31 August 2020.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Blakeley & Jaine has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7125 of 2018

Mr Blakeley

Applicant

And

Ms Jaine

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 5 March 2020 I made orders requiring the applicant to pay the respondent weekly spousal maintenance of $836.[1]

   [1]Blakeley & Jaine (No 2) [2020] FamCA 141.

2. The applicant has appealed against that order.  He is now unrepresented and has brought a stay application in relation to the orders requiring him to pay weekly spousal maintenance of $836.  He asserts financial hardship.

3. In his application in a case by which he brings this stay application, the applicant sought one order, namely –

   Stay of order 1 of the Honourable Justice Wilson made on 5 March 2020 (that the husband pay the wife weekly spousal maintenance in the sum of $836) pending a decision in the Appeal EAA43/2020.

4. In support of his stay application the applicant deposed to his current circumstances.  In the passages below I have extracted the more important details on…