Wu v Ling (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 356

Wu v Ling (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 356

Judgment was entered for the cross-appellant because the cross-appellant supplied a calculated judgment amount to the cross-respondent's solicitors in accordance with the prior orders, no substantive response was provided, and the appellant's personally filed Notice of Motion did not preclude entry of judgment; however, enforcement was stayed temporarily and the motion was listed before the Vacation Judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders Following Appeal and Cross Appeal / Final Orders on the Papers
Outcome
Judgment entered for the cross-appellant; enforcement stayed until 5.00 pm on 22 December 2016; appellant's Notice of Motion listed before the Vacation Judge.
Legal Topics
['entry of Judgment' 'consequential Orders' 'stay of Enforcement' 'notice of Motion' 'calculation of Contractual Interest']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['entry of Judgment' 'consequential Orders' 'stay of Enforcement' 'notice of Motion' 'calculation of Contractual Interest']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders Following Appeal and Cross Appeal / Final Orders on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether judgment should be entered for the cross-appellant where the parties had been ordered to agree on the calculation of the judgment amount, the cross-appellant provided calculations to the cross-respondent's solicitors, and the cross-respondent personally filed a Notice of Motion seeking to put the Court of Appeal decision on hold." "Whether enforcement of the judgment should be stayed and the appellant's Notice of Motion listed before the Vacation Judge."]

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment was entered for the cross-appellant because the cross-appellant supplied a calculated judgment amount to the cross-respondent's solicitors in accordance with the prior orders, no substantive response was provided, and the appellant's personally filed Notice of Motion did not preclude entry of judgment; however, enforcement was stayed temporarily and the motion was listed before the Vacation Judge.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the cross-appellant; enforcement stayed until 5.00 pm on 22 December 2016; appellant's Notice of Motion listed before the Vacation Judge.

Orders

  • ['Judgment is entered for the cross-appellant in the amount of $3,086,424.71.' 'The enforcement of the Judgment is stayed until 5.00 pm on 22 December 2016.' 'The Notice of Motion filed by the appellant on 8 December 2016 is listed before the Vacation Judge at 10.15am on 22 December 2016.']