Michael Staindl offloads house before court date with Josh Frydenberg

Michael Staindl put his home in his wife’s name before a court decision on his attempt to force Josh Frydenberg from parliament.

Michael Staindl leaves the Federal Court in Melbourne this week. Picture: AAP

Climate activist Michael Staindl has transferred ownership of his inner-city Melbourne home to his wife ahead of a decision by the Federal Court on his push to force Josh Frydenberg from parliament.

Mr Staindl, who has raised $32,473 on a crowd-funding page to support his legal case against the Treasurer, removed his name from the title of his Hawthorn home on November 25.

The Extinction Rebellion protester­, who has also launched defamation action against Scott Morrison, bought the 676sq m property in 1995.

It would likely fetch up to $4m on the current market.

Legal experts told The Australian that if Mr Staindl lost his section­ 44 case against Mr ­Frydenberg, which claims the Kooyong MP is a dual Australian-Hungarian citizen, the property transfer may be unwound.

A decision on the case, following a petition made by Mr Staindl to the High Court, is expected within weeks. The case centres on Mr Staindl’s claim that Mr Frydenberg should be disqualified under the Constitution because he is entitled to Hungarian citiz­enship through his mother, Erica.

Mrs Frydenberg, who was born in Budapest in 1943, arrived in Australia with her siblings on the SS Surriento from the Italian city of Genoa in 1950, with travel document­s issued to stateless peopl­e after fleeing the Holocaust.

Mr Frydenberg’s lawyers told a Federal Court hearing on Tuesday that it was likely his mother’s family renounced its Hungarian citizenship.

In November, The Australian revealed the Hungarian government had written to Mr Frydenberg telling him he had no “established” claim to citizenship.

Mr Staindl denied on Thursday that he transferred the property for legal reasons and claimed it was linked to personal issues involv­ing his wife, Kay Wennagel.

“I’m heavily involved with ­climate action and the property was moved due to personal ­issues with my wife some time ago,” Mr Staindl said.

“It has nothing to do with the court cases at all.”

Murdoch University legal scholar Steve Shaw, not commenting specifically on the case, said other parties in court cases could apply for security for costs if they were concerned about property transfers.

“If the other party became aware that assets were being transferred they could apply for an order for security for costs, that is, put the money you would need to pay into court or we won’t let you proceed,” Dr Shaw said.

“If it was plain that the property­ had been transferred to avoid costs then there would be ways — possibly very expensive ways — to claw it back.

“As we have a halfway decent legal system, we have mechan­isms to prevent it or remedy it. But of course they rely on the other party being aware in ­advance, or having the wherewithal — time, money and patience — to seek a remedy afterwards.”

Other legal experts said the status of property transferred in legal costs claims could come down to whether the plaintiff was forced to declare bankruptcy.

In a separate case, the Federal Court sitting on Thursday ­ as the Court of Disputed­ Returns signalled­ that Oliver Yates — a climate activist from Kooyong — would be required to pay his own costs after failing to overturn Mr Frydenberg’s election victory.

Mr Yates, who spent $483,804 on his election campaign but received only 8890 votes, lost his claim after the court decided that Liberal Party campaign signs resembling ­Australian Electoral Commission signage could not have affected the final results in Kooyong and in Gladys Liu’s neighbouring seat of Chisholm.