SULLIVAN & TYLER

The Family Court of Australia heard an application by Ms Sullivan (the mother) for a stay of final parenting orders made on 26 March 2014, and for variation of interim orders to allow face-to-face time with the child pending her appeal. Mr Tyler (the father) sought an injunction under s 118(1)(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and costs. The mother's applications were dismissed, and the court reserved its decision on the father's applications.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the mother's application for a stay of the final parenting orders, and consequently, whether to grant the father's application for an injunction restraining the mother from filing further parenting applications without leave. Additionally, the court had to consider the father's application for costs against the mother.

In its reasoning, the court applied established principles for granting a stay of parenting orders pending appeal, which include the welfare of the child as a significant consideration, the bona fides of the applicant, the strength of the proposed appeal, and the desirability of limiting changes to the child's living arrangements. The court noted that the onus was on the mother to establish a proper basis for the stay, and that the mere filing of an appeal was insufficient. The court found that many of the grounds of appeal sought to re-argue the case presented at the hearing and involved disagreements with the court's assessment of evidence and findings of fact. The court also considered the father's entitlement to the benefit of the judgment and the presumption that it was correct.

The court ordered that the mother be restrained, pursuant to s 118(1)(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, from filing any application for parenting orders concerning the child without the leave of a judge of the Family Court of Australia, pending the determination of her appeal and any subsequent appeal. Furthermore, the mother was ordered to pay the father's costs in the sum of $1,125.00 in respect of the applications heard on 12 June 2014, as she was wholly unsuccessful and her application was repetitive of previously determined issues.