20 Jul 2022
The applicants were wholly unsuccessful, advanced an unproven allegation of theft that could not be resolved or used to justify costs in the stay application, and accordingly the respondents, as the successful party, were entitled to costs assessed at $1,195 under Step 62 of Schedule 3 to the High Court Rules 2016.
10 Mar 2021
The respondents knowingly and deliberately failed without reasonable excuse to comply with clear discovery and costs orders; that conduct warranted contempt sanctions. The Court therefore ordered specified supplementary discovery by sworn affidavit, a fine of $5,000 under the Contempt of Court Act 2019, payment of Spark's indemnity costs for steps taken since 4 September 2020, and interest on earlier costs orders calculated under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, all to be complied with within ten working days.
6 Aug 2020
Respondents' discovery compliance was deficient and caused unnecessary proceedings, but the applicant did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that respondents knowingly and without reasonable excuse disobeyed orders; therefore no contempt finding or fines were imposed; costs were awarded to the applicant with a 50% uplift from scale to reflect respondents' contribution to unnecessary time and expense; leave reserved to seek further contempt or indemnity costs if new evidence justifies it, and applicant ordered to file a short costs schedule to quantify the award.
11 Nov 2016
The stay was declined because the balance of convenience favoured the respondent: the maintenance order was intended to continue until relationship property resolution, the respondent relied on the payments to meet reasonable needs, there was no material change in her circumstances, the appellant was in a position to pay, the appeal lacked apparent merit on maintenance, and the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by refusal of a stay.
16 Dec 2015
The stay was refused because the potential irretrievable prejudice to the respondent (likely termination of her employment and elimination of the principal reasons for relocation) outweighed the appellant's asserted prejudice; the appellant's appeal rights were not rendered nugatory because he could prosecute the appeal and the respondent had given undertakings and the orders could be registered in Australia.