Velten and Velten (No 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VELTEN & VELTEN (NO 2) [2020] FamCA 542

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION PENDING APPEAL – respondent in the proceeding seeking to stay operation of interlocutory orders requiring him to pay the applicant the sum of $200,000 – respondent arguing 4 grounds of appeal – relevant legal criteria for grant of a stay considered – none of the criteria met – stay application unmeritorious – application for stay dismissed – costs ordered.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 74, 79, 114, 117(2A)

Aldridge & Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 106
Coulton & Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Jackson & Balen [2009] FamCAFC 131
Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681
Kyriakos v Kyriakos (2013) 48 Fam LR 618
Velten & Velten [2020] FamCA 384
Wei & Wei(No 4) [2020] FamCA 160

APPLICANT: Ms Velten

RESPONDENT: Mr Velten

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7244 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 26 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: The Honourable Justice Wilson

HEARING DATE: 26 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr T. Puckey

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Taussig Cherrie Fildes

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr D. Matta

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: KCL Law

Orders

1. The respondent’s application for a stay of my orders made on 22 May 2020 is dismissed.

2. The respondent’s application in a case filed 23 June 2020 is dismissed

3. On or before 27 July 2020 the respondent pay to the applicant costs in the sum of $2,210.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Velten & Velten has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7244 of 2019

Ms Velten

Applicant

And

Mr Velten

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore)

Introduction  

1. By application in a case dated 23 June 2020, the respondent in this litigation has sought orders staying the operation of my orders made on 22 May 2020.  The respondent has filed a notice of appeal against my orders.  He says that unless a stay of the operation of those orders is granted his appeal will be rendered nugatory. 

Synopsis

1. For the reasons that now follow, in my judgment –

   a)his application for a stay is refused; and

   b)I dismiss his application in a case.

2. I shall hear the parties on the question of costs. 

A short factual recital 

1. The factual setting of this litigation has been carefully narrated by me in the reasons against which the respondent appeals.  They appear in Velten & Velten