Bonnett and Bonnett (No. 2)

In *Bonnett and Bonnett (No. 2)*, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for a stay of all orders concerning property adjustment, child support, and spousal maintenance pending the determination of his appeal. The dispute arose from the husband's failure to disclose significant changes to his employment circumstances, specifically the termination of his employment and cessation of income, both prior to and at a relisting of the matter after the trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of the existing orders. The court was required to determine if the husband had discharged the onus of justifying the grant of a stay, given that the filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically operate as a stay. A further consideration was the potential injustice or hardship that granting a stay might impose on the wife.

Cleary J reasoned that the husband's failure to disclose his impending job termination and cessation of income to the court at a relisting after trial was profoundly unsatisfactory. The husband's explanation that he did not want to "waste time" making a variation application and simply wished to proceed with the stay application was found to be incomprehensible. The court noted that granting a stay could create injustice or impose hardship on the wife, who was entitled to the benefit of the judgment. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted. Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed.