Hodges and Rose (No. 2)

In *Hodges and Rose (No. 2)*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by both the husband and the wife. The husband sought the enforcement of a judgment, including the payment of a principal sum and interest, and his costs. The wife, in turn, applied for an extension of time under a previously made conditional stay order, asserting that new material indicated no basis for the stay as it had been presented.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife an extension of time to comply with the conditional stay order, and whether to grant the husband's application for enforcement of the judgment, including the payment of the outstanding sum, interest, and costs.

Cronin J dismissed the wife's application for an extension of time, finding that the new material did not support the basis upon which the stay had been granted. The court reasoned that there was no basis to refuse the husband's application for enforcement, as part of the order remained unpaid and interest had accrued. Consequently, the court ordered that the wife sell such shares as necessary within seven days to satisfy the sum of $230,000 to the husband, interest of $8,059, and the husband's costs fixed at $25,000. The wife was ordered to pay this interest and these costs. The husband's application and the wife's response thereto were otherwise dismissed.