Touma v Sparas [1999] NSWCA 298

Touma v Sparas [1999] NSWCA 298

A stay was refused because no evidence showed that the applicant was in parlous financial circumstances or that the opponent would be unable or unlikely to provide restitution if the appeal succeeded, and the Court was far from satisfied that the proposed appeal concerning refused adjournments was strong.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Application to Stay Execution of Judgment / Court of Appeal Summons After District Court Judgment
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'appeal' 'adjournment Applications' 'restitution']
['civil Procedure'] ['stay of Execution' 'appeal' 'adjournment Applications' 'restitution']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Stay Execution of Judgment / Court of Appeal Summons After District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether execution of the District Court judgment should be stayed pending appeal.' "Whether the applicant's prospects of appeal and the parties' financial circumstances justified a stay."]

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was refused because no evidence showed that the applicant was in parlous financial circumstances or that the opponent would be unable or unlikely to provide restitution if the appeal succeeded, and the Court was far from satisfied that the proposed appeal concerning refused adjournments was strong.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'The summons is dismissed with costs.']