Meadows and Meadows (No 5)

[2019] FamCA 848

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 5) [2019] FamCA 848

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay application – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975(Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106

APPLICANT: Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT: Mr Meadows

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3509 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 24 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Baumann J

HEARING DATE: 24 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: Self-represented

THE RESPONDENT: Self-represented

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Mr P Wilkin

Phillip A Wilkins & Associates

Orders

1. That the Application for a stay of Order 19 of the Orders made 30 July 2019 be granted pending determination of the appeal.

2. That the Applications for a stay of Orders 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Orders made 30 July 2019 be dismissed.

3. That all other Applications be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Meadows & Meadows has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3509 of 2013

MS MEADOWS

Applicant

And

MR MEADOWS

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Settled from the oral reasons delivered)

1. On 30 July 2019 for Reasons published at that time, the Court made various parenting and property Orders and also dismissed an Application for spouse maintenance pursued by the wife at a hearing conducted before me in Sydney on 14, 15, 16 and 17 January 2019.  Subsequent to those Orders being made, an Application to vary the parenting Orders was made and after the matter had been dealt with initially by Loughnan J in Sydney, during that hearing, as his Reasons made clear, some matters were listed before me for determination, as, in his Honour’s view, the matters were matters which went to the machinery provisions for which liberty to apply at Order 29 had been given.

2. On 19 September 2019, I dealt with the remaining Applications then before the Court and slightly varied the Orders made on 30 July 2019 at Order 4.  Subsequent to that decision having been made, but in circumstances where the Court had been informed by the mother that she proposed to file an appeal against some of the Orders made by the Court, the mother did file an Application on 30 September 2019 seeking a stay of the parenting Orders numbered 2, 5, 6 and 9 pending appeal; a stay of the property Order number 19 pending appeal; and sought an order for…