The mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to stay the father's motion to change until he satisfied over $84,000 in outstanding costs and equalization orders.
The court applied the three-stage test for Rule 1(8) and found that the father's failure to pay the orders was a triggering event, and there were no exceptional circumstances to exercise discretion in his favour.
The court held that allowing the father to proceed while in breach of the orders would condone an ongoing abuse of process.
The father's motion to change was stayed pending full payment of the outstanding orders.
