Grant v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2001] NSWCA 107

Grant v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2001] NSWCA 107

The stay of execution of the order for possession should be discharged because the appeal in which it was granted had been discontinued, the separate proceedings intended to allow Miss Grant to establish possessory title had been dismissed with no valid appeal on foot, and the sequestration order underpinning those events remained in force. However, any writ of possession should lie in the office for two months to balance the Council's entitlement to possession against the physical and emotional impact on Miss Grant of vacating after long occupation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Stay of Execution of Order for Possession / Court of Appeal, Single Judge, After Discontinuance of Appeal
Outcome
Stay discharged; delayed execution of writ of possession for two months; stay of costs order refused.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'order for Possession' 'discontinuance of Appeal' 'possessory Title' 'sequestration Order' 'anshun Estoppel']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law' 'bankruptcy'] ['stay of Execution' 'order for Possession' 'discontinuance of Appeal' 'possessory Title' 'sequestration Order' 'anshun Estoppel']

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

Application to Discharge Stay of Execution of Order for Possession / Court of Appeal, Single Judge, After Discontinuance of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the stay of execution of the order for possession made on 10 April 2000 should be discharged after the appeal in which it was granted had been discontinued.' 'Whether execution of the order for costs made by Windeyer J should be stayed.' 'What time, if any, should be allowed before the Council may execute a writ of possession.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay of execution of the order for possession should be discharged because the appeal in which it was granted had been discontinued, the separate proceedings intended to allow Miss Grant to establish possessory title had been dismissed with no valid appeal on foot, and the sequestration order underpinning those events remained in force. However, any writ of possession should lie in the office for two months to balance the Council's entitlement to possession against the physical and emotional impact on Miss Grant of vacating after long occupation.

Court Disposition

Stay discharged; delayed execution of writ of possession for two months; stay of costs order refused.

Orders

  • ['The stay granted on 10 April 2000 was discharged.' 'Any writ of possession issued by Baulkham Hills Shire Council is to lie in the office until the expiry of a period of two months from 11 April 2001.' 'Orders made according to the manuscript document dated 11 April 2001.']