Cheetham and Cheetham (No 2)

In *Cheetham and Cheetham (No 2)*, Cleary J considered an application by the wife for a stay of final property orders pending her appeal. The dispute arose from orders requiring the sale of the former matrimonial home and the division of sale proceeds between the parties. The wife sought to retain the home and argued that without a stay, her appeal could be rendered nugatory, while the husband opposed the application, contending he would be disadvantaged by delays in receiving his awarded funds.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of the property orders, and if so, on what conditions. This required the court to balance the wife's potential for her appeal to be rendered nugatory against the husband's asserted disadvantage from delayed receipt of funds. The court also had to assess the prospects of the wife's appeal being successful, albeit cautiously.

Cleary J adopted a cautious approach in assessing the prospects of the appeal. The court determined that the appropriate course was to grant the stay, but on the condition that the wife pay the husband $145,000 within 21 days. This condition aimed to mitigate the disadvantage to the husband by ensuring he received a portion of the funds awarded to him from resources acknowledged as available to the wife.

The court also made orders regarding costs. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs on an indemnity basis for the hearing on 26 April 2018. No order was made as to costs for the hearing on 17 May 2018, and any applications for costs arising from the hearing on 7 June 2018 were to be made within 28 days. Costs from the trial in August 2017 were stood over to be fixed after the determination of the pending appeal.