By and -

Key decisions

  • Goldsmith & Stinson (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1A 25
  • Darmadi & Binjori [2023] FedCFamC1A 29
  • Wheeler & Loggins [2023] FedCFamC1F 66
  • Peluso & Karle [2023] FedCFamC1F 87


Court validly extended previously ordered deadlines following unsuccessful appeal – stay such that time pursuant to appealed order did not run until appeal dismissed

In Goldsmith & Stinson (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1A 25 (15 March 2023), the Full Court (McClelland DCJ, Riethmuller & Strum JJ) heard a wife’s appeal against a decision of Carew J.

Final orders required the wife to transfer a property to the husband and for him to pay the wife $602,415 within 60 days. The wife filed an appeal, while the husband obtained a stay pending the appeal.

After the wife’s appeal was dismissed, the husband advised the wife that his bank had indicated it would be able to settle on 15 July 2022. The wife sought to invoke the default provisions of the final orders which would result in the transfer of property to the wife.

The parties then filed competing enforcement applications, with Carew J extending the time in which the husband had to comply with the final orders. The wife appealed.

McClelland DCJ and Strum J said (from [60]):

‘ … [T]he extent of the amendments made by the primary judge in the … [final] orders … simply imposed new dates to give effect to her Honour’s decree but did not impose completely different rights and obligations on the parties. …

[92] … [W]e are of the view that, when considered in this context, the 60 day timeframes [mandated by the final orders] may be consequential or machinery provisions, capable of subsequent amendment. …’

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more