Pellam and Valasco (No 2)

In *Pellam and Valasco (No 2)*, Judge Newbrun of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered applications by the Husband for stays of orders made on 28 January 2020, which were consent orders for the adjustment of property. The Husband sought to remain in the former matrimonial home and prevent its sale, as directed by the earlier consent orders. The Wife, in response to the Husband's stay applications, sought a stay of a specific order concerning the proceeds of sale, pending the determination of the Husband's appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the Husband's applications for stays of the property adjustment orders, and alternatively, whether to grant the Wife's application for a stay of the order relating to the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home. The Court was required to consider the principles governing applications for stays of judgments, particularly in the context of appeals, and to weigh the competing rights and interests of the parties.

The Court applied established legal principles for stay applications, noting that the onus rests on the applicant to establish a proper basis for the stay, though not necessarily special or exceptional circumstances. Key considerations included the entitlement of a party to the benefit of a judgment, the presumption of its correctness, and that the mere filing of an appeal is insufficient. The Court also considered the bona fides of the applicant, the balance of convenience, the risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory, a preliminary assessment of the appeal's strength, and the desirability of limiting changes to living arrangements.

The Court ordered that Order 1(e) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia's orders of 28 January 2020 be stayed, with the proceeds of sale to be held in trust by the Wife's solicitors pending the determination of the Husband's appeal. The Husband's other stay applications were dismissed.