Kildea & Kildea (No. 2)

In *Kildea & Kildea (No. 2)*, O'Reilly J of the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for a stay of court orders. The specific dispute involved a party seeking to stay the operation of existing court orders, and the central question was which legal provision governed such an application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether section 111C of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (the Registration and Collection Act) applied to an application for a stay of court orders, or if the matter was governed by the court's own Rules of Court, specifically Rule 22.12.

O'Reilly J reasoned that section 111C of the Registration and Collection Act was not applicable to an application for a stay of court orders. The court found that section 111C(3) expressly permits a stay only in relation to "the operation or implementation of the Assessment Act and this Act," not court orders themselves. Furthermore, the court invoked the doctrine of separation of powers, holding that the power to stay a court's own orders, particularly in relation to its appellate processes, is a matter for the court itself, governed by its own Rules of Court and established legal principles. The court distinguished the purpose of section 111C as relating to the stay of administrative actions or decisions, rather than judicial pronouncements. Despite this primary finding, the court indicated it would consider the test under section 111C(3) as if it applied, in addition to the principles relevant to Rule 22.12.