Caffyn and Protz & Anor [

In the Family Court of Australia, Rees J considered an application by the wife for a stay of two sets of orders pending her appeal against the latter set. The earlier orders concerned the position of a liquidator, and the wife sought no basis to stay these. The latter orders were consent property settlement orders made between the husband and wife.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant a stay of the consent property settlement orders and, if so, to what extent, and to determine the costs of the applications. The court was also required to consider the wife's application to stay the orders involving the liquidator.

Rees J reasoned that there was no basis to stay the orders concerning the liquidator, and therefore the wife was unsuccessful in that regard and was ordered to pay the liquidator's costs. However, in relation to the property settlement orders, the court found it appropriate to grant a partial stay. This involved ordering that a sum of $330,000 be held in a controlled monies account by the husband's solicitors pending the determination of the wife's appeal. Furthermore, the wife was restrained from dealing with a specific property, the "E Town property," pending the appeal.

Consequently, the court ordered a partial stay of the property settlement orders, requiring $330,000 to be held in a controlled monies account and restraining the wife from dealing with the E Town property. The wife was ordered to pay the liquidator's costs. The husband's application for costs was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs between the husband and wife regarding the stay application.