Firth and Hale-Forbes (No. 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Firth (the father) for a stay of child support departure orders made on 10 May 2013, pending the determination of his appeal against those orders. Ms Hale-Forbes (the mother) opposed the stay application and also sought costs related to an interlocutory application and the substantive proceedings. Additionally, the mother applied to vary the final orders pursuant to the slip rule.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the father's application for a stay of the child support departure orders. This required the Court to consider the principles governing stays pending appeal, particularly in circumstances where the applicant is not complying with the orders sought to be stayed. The Court also had to determine the mother's application to amend the final orders under the slip rule, which involves correcting accidental omissions or clerical mistakes. Finally, the Court was asked to consider applications for costs, including whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis.

In relation to the stay application, the Court found that the father's non-compliance with the child support departure orders was a sufficient ground to refuse the exercise of its discretion in his favour. The Court noted that the father, a legal professional, was seeking a stay of orders he was not adhering to, and he had not demonstrated an inability to pay or undue hardship. The Court reasoned that refusing the stay would not render the appeal nugatory, as the father was not currently paying the ordered amount, and if the appeal were successful, he would not suffer detriment. The Court also found that the mother's application to amend the orders under the slip rule was successful, as the amendments sought were either accidental omissions or clerical mistakes. The Court ordered the father to pay the mother's costs on a party and party basis for the slip rule application, the interlocutory application, and half of the costs for the substantive proceedings, citing the father's unreasonable opposition and superior financial circumstances. However, the Court declined to award costs on an indemnity basis, finding the stringent test for such an award was not met.