REDMOND & STOLZ (STAY APPEAL)

The matter in Redmond & Stolz (Stay Appeal) involved the father, the appellant, who sought various adjournments and stays in relation to a family law case. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the father's applications. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia convened specially to hear the urgent matter. The primary issues before the court were whether to grant the father's application for an adjournment due to his mental health and desire for legal advice, and whether to stay certain orders that permitted the child to travel with the mother and restrained the father from involving the Australian Federal Police.

The court found that the father's applications were attempts to frustrate the court's process. The Full Court examined the principles governing a stay application pending appeal, as outlined in Aldridge v Keaton (Stay Appeal). The court concluded that the father's appeal was both vexatious and without merit, and therefore dismissed the appeal. Additionally, the court dismissed the father's oral application for a stay pending a special leave application to the High Court of Australia, finding little merit in the special leave application. The court further ruled that the vexatious and unmeritorious nature of the appeal warranted an order for the father to pay the mother's costs on an indemnity basis.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the father's application for a stay and his appeal. The orders included dismissing the father's application for a stay pending special leave to appeal to the High Court, dismissing the appeal, and ordering the father to pay the mother's costs on an indemnity basis. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer were permitted to publish the orders and reasons for judgment to ensure compliance with the travel arrangements for the child.