Fenwick & Temple (No. 2)

In the matter of *Fenwick & Temple (No. 2)*, Mr Temple sought a stay of certain orders made by the Family Court of Australia on 26 February 2021, arguing he lacked the funds to make the ordered settlement payment and that a refusal to grant the stay would cause him prejudice due to the potential forced sale of assets. Ms Fenwick opposed the application for a stay.

The central legal issue before Carew J was whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay of the settlement payment, and if so, on what terms and conditions. The court was required to consider the husband's financial circumstances and the potential prejudice he might suffer against the wife's opposition to the stay.

Carew J found that the balance of convenience supported granting a stay of at least part of the settlement payment. The court determined that a sum of $2,000,000 was a reasonable amount to be paid, given the husband's available bank balance, and that upon payment of this sum, his obligation to pay periodic spousal maintenance would cease. The court then made detailed orders, including staying the payment of $2,000,000 pending the determination of an appeal, discharging certain prior spousal maintenance obligations upon that payment, varying the timing of another payment, and imposing mutual restraints on the disposal or encumbrance of specified assets by both parties, with certain exceptions for necessary expenses and obligations.