Snell v Glatis

In *Snell v Glatis*, the appellants sought a stay of enforcement of certain orders made by Rees J on 27 November 2019, pending the determination of their appeal. The dispute concerned the capacity of the first appellant to satisfy a debt, given that his net worth was largely illiquid and he had liquidated personal assets during the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents, who were US citizens, opposed the stay of buy-out orders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of judgment pending appeal, and if so, upon what conditions. This involved considering the appellant's financial position, particularly the illiquid nature of his assets and the impact of recent economic conditions, as well as the potential prejudice to the respondents. The court also had to determine appropriate conditions to ensure the respondents' interests were protected pending the appeal.

Basten JA granted the stay of enforcement of orders (4) and (7)-(14) made by Rees J. The court reasoned that a stay was warranted given the short delay anticipated before the appeal hearing and the appellant's demonstrable illiquidity, exacerbated by the pandemic. However, the stay was made conditional upon the first appellant not removing from Australia or disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of any Australian assets without the respondents' prior written consent, save for ordinary living, legal, and medical expenses. The costs of the motion were ordered to be the respondents’ costs in the appeal, with liberty to apply to vary the orders.