Janos and Janos (No 2)

In *Janos and Janos (No 2)*, Foster J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Husband for a stay of superannuation splitting orders previously made by the court. The dispute arose from the Husband's appeal against these earlier orders, which had directed the division of his superannuation interests between the parties.

The central legal issue before Foster J was whether the Husband had established sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of the superannuation splitting orders pending the final determination of his appeal. This required the court to assess the merits of the appeal and the potential prejudice to the parties if the orders were implemented or stayed.

Foster J applied the principles governing applications for a stay of judgment pending appeal. His Honour considered the likelihood of the appeal succeeding and the balance of convenience between the parties. The decision to grant the stay indicated that the Husband had presented a case that raised arguable grounds for appeal, and that the potential detriment to the Husband if the orders were implemented outweighed the potential detriment to the Wife if they were stayed.

Consequently, Foster J ordered that the implementation and operation of the superannuation splitting orders made on 1 October 2013 be stayed until the determination of the Husband's appeal filed on 24 October 2013.