Wallis v Rudek (No. 2)

In *Wallis v Rudek (No. 2)*, the Court of Appeal considered an application to discharge an order that had stayed the giving up of vacant possession of property pending the resolution of appeal proceedings. The central dispute revolved around whether undertakings provided to support the initial stay had been breached.

The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues: first, whether the undertakings proffered in support of the stay had been breached by the conduct of the parties; and second, whether, in light of any such breach, the stay should be discharged.

White JA reasoned that the undertakings given were material to the grant of the stay and that their breach warranted the discharge of that stay. The court applied the principle that where undertakings given to the court are not honoured, the court is entitled to revisit and, if necessary, discharge orders made on the basis of those undertakings. The court found that the undertakings had indeed been breached, leading to the conclusion that the stay should be lifted.

The Court ordered that the stay be discharged and directed counsel to bring in short minutes of order consistent with the reasons provided.