Dinci and Smith

In the matter of *Dinci and Smith*, Kent J considered applications by the Husband and Wife concerning existing Consent Orders made on 8 April 2013. The Husband sought a stay of these orders pending the determination of his application under section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to vary the original orders. Conversely, the Wife applied to summarily dismiss the Husband's section 79A application.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Husband was entitled to a stay of the existing Consent Orders pending the determination of his section 79A application, and whether the Wife's application to summarily dismiss the Husband's section 79A application should be granted. The court was also required to consider variations to the original Consent Orders and the implications of any stay granted.

Kent J dismissed the Husband's application for a stay of the Consent Orders, and also dismissed the Wife's application to summarily dismiss the Husband's section 79A application. The court then made orders by consent to vary specific provisions of the original Consent Orders, altering the timeframe for compliance from "within sixty (60) days" to "on or before 23 September 2013". Further orders were made to stay the effect of Order 7 of the Consent Orders, which provided for a payment to the Husband, pending the determination of his section 79A application. To facilitate this stay, the Wife was ordered to pay the sum of $35,000.00, as referred to in Order 7, into the trust account of her legal representatives. Finally, the costs of and incidental to these applications were reserved to the trial judge.