Sitwell and Sitwell (No. 3)

In *Sitwell & Sitwell (No. 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for a stay of orders made on 14 March 2013. These prior orders had dismissed two applications made by the husband: one seeking an extension of time to complete a contract for the sale of a business, and another seeking the disqualification of the presiding Judicial Officer. The wife was the respondent in these proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the husband's application for a stay of the dismissal orders. This involved assessing whether the husband's intended appeal had any realistic prospect of success, and whether he would prosecute the appeal promptly and properly, given his history in the litigation. The court also considered the wife's right to the "fruits of litigation" and whether the husband's appeal constituted a further delaying tactic.

Collier J dismissed the husband's application for a stay. Her Honour reasoned that the husband's appeal had no realistic prospects of success, as the contract for sale had not been completed within the time stipulated by previous court orders, and neither those orders nor the dismissal orders had been appealed. The court found that granting a stay would merely postpone the wife's entitlement to the benefit of her properly obtained orders and would serve as a further delaying tactic by the husband, whose history indicated a lack of prompt prosecution of his applications. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the stay, noting that the granting of a stay is not automatic upon the lodging of an appeal.