In rejecting their application for a stay of the order, the primary judge said the couple had alternative options for accommodation and would not consider COVID-19 restrictions.

“I am well aware that the COVID-19 epidemic represents an emergency the like of which has not been experienced in this country for decades, but the mere invocation of [COVID-19] emergency should not result in a suspension of all critical thinking or judgement,” the primary judge said.

The appeal judge has directed the couple to bring in short minutes of order and accepted that the public health restrictions do not preclude them from seeking alternative options for housing, even if they are unwilling to do so in light of the global pandemic. The court has instead offered a position for a relatively early hearing date for the future appeal.

The judge also allowed for the couple’s son-in-law to be given a court order to travel with a reasonable excuse from Orange to Sydney in order to remove possessions.

“[The couple’s] solicitor deposes that the first appellant has an existing heart condition and that the second appellant has a slow-growing brain tumour that is said to impact her heart and blood pressure, and she is on blood pressure medication,” the appeal judge said.

“They are of an age and in a state of health that makes them vulnerable to serious illness or death if they were to become infected with the virus. As I said, public health advice is that so far as possible, persons in their position should remain home.”

To share how COVID-19 has impacted you and your business, please complete this anonymous, two-minute survey here.

VIEW ALL

For more information, please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.