DRURY & BENSON (No.4)

In *Drury & Benson (No.4)*, the applicant sought a partial stay of final property settlement orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the applicant's obligation to pay the respondent the sum of $615,726. The applicant appealed these final orders and requested that the obligation to pay the full amount be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.

The court was required to consider the principles governing stay applications, specifically those outlined in *Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal)*, to determine whether a partial stay of the payment order should be granted. The central legal issue was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of a portion of the property settlement sum, balancing the applicant's right to appeal against the respondent's entitlement to the ordered payment.

Judge Kari applied the principles from *Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal)*, which generally require an applicant to show a strong prima facie case or a serious question to be tried, and that the balance of convenience favours granting the stay. In this instance, the court ordered a partial stay, requiring the applicant to pay $500,000 to the respondent within 30 days. This payment was to be made in partial satisfaction of the original property settlement orders, with the remaining sum and other aspects of the original orders stayed pending the appeal. The court also made ancillary orders regarding the withdrawal of a caveat by the respondent and an injunction restraining the applicant from dealing with a specific property, subject to the respondent's compliance with certain conditions.