Cluny and Skinner (No 2)

In *Cluny and Skinner (No 2)*, the parties were husband and wife, and the dispute concerned the husband's contravention of court orders relating to financial obligations, including spouse maintenance, lump sum arrears, and costs totalling over $250,000. The matter came before Kent J of the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the husband had shown cause why a previously imposed term of imprisonment for contempt should not be brought into effect, given his substantial failure to remedy his non-compliance with financial orders. Additionally, the court considered an oral application by the husband for a stay of the contempt orders pending appeal.

Kent J reasoned that the husband had failed to demonstrate any valid reason why the three-month imprisonment sentence, which was contingent on his default in payment, should not be enforced. The court noted that the husband had paid only a minimal amount of the significant debt owed by the deadline of 31 July 2019. Consequently, the term of imprisonment was enlivened. However, the court granted a temporary stay of the imprisonment and commitment warrant for fourteen days to allow the husband to file a formal application for a stay of the orders pending appeal. The husband was also ordered to surrender his passport and pay the wife's indemnity costs.