Gough and Amado (No. 3)

In the Family Court of Australia at Sydney, Ms Gough (the applicant) sought a stay of proceedings concerning an order made on 4 May 2007, which required her to arrange alternative accommodation. Mr Amado (the respondent) opposed this application, arguing that the property had been ordered for sale some time ago and that the applicant had previously disrupted the sale process. The respondent also contended that the applicant had alternative accommodation available in France and that no further delay should be permitted.

The primary legal issue before Justice Rose was whether to grant the applicant's request for a stay of proceedings, specifically in relation to the order for alternative accommodation. This involved considering the applicant's stated difficulty in arranging such accommodation due to a lack of financial resources and the respondent's arguments regarding previous delays and the applicant's conduct. The court also had to consider the applicant's assertion that she had not seen the respondent's written submissions until after the orders were made, which formed part of her intended grounds of appeal.

Justice Rose reasoned that, based on the material before the court and her findings of fact, it was probable that the applicant could not reasonably reorganise her accommodation by the stipulated date. While acknowledging some doubt about the validity of the grounds of appeal, the judge found the applicant's contention that she had not seen the respondent's written submissions to be entirely without foundation, as the court's records indicated the submissions were filed on the last day of the hearing and the applicant had responded orally to them. Despite this, the application for a stay was determined to succeed.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings in respect of Order 2 made on 4 May 2007, with the stay to expire at 5:00 pm on 3 June 2007.