Grange and Grange and Ors (No. 2)

In *Grange and Grange and Ors (No. 2)*, Kent J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Grange. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed, but the orders indicate it involved an application filed by Mr Grange on 28 March 2018, which was subsequently dismissed. The proceedings also involved costs awarded against Mr Grange.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant leave for parties to appear by electronic communication and, more significantly, the dismissal of Mr Grange's application and the award of costs. The court's decision also implicitly addresses the principles governing applications for stays of execution pending appeal, as discussed in the judgment's reasoning.

Kent J's reasoning, drawing on established case law such as *Kelly and Kelly*, *Klinker Knitting Mills Pty. Ltd. v. Union Fire Insurance and General Insurance Co. Ltd.*, and *Scarborough v. Lews Junction Stores Pty. Ltd.*, affirmed that an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution. The court reiterated that a stay is not granted as a matter of course and requires the demonstration of "special circumstances" or a "real risk" that an appeal would be rendered abortive if a stay were not granted. The discretion to grant a stay is wide and should be exercised based on the specific circumstances of each case, particularly within the context of the *Family Law Act*, where the impact of orders can vary significantly.

The court ordered that Mr Grange and the second respondent have leave to appear by electronic communication. Mr Grange's application filed on 28 March 2018 was dismissed. Furthermore, Mr Grange was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, fixed at $1,632.81, within thirty days.