Frigger v Trenfield (No 13) [2022] FCA 906

Frigger v Trenfield (No 13) [2022] FCA 906

The application was dismissed because the applicants provided no grounds enabling any assessment of the merits of the appeal and, principally, no evidence indicating any real chance that the prejudice relied upon, including being forced to vacate their home, would materialise within the next 30 days; the first respondent was entitled to costs fixed at $900.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution or Suspension of Costs Judgment / Application Filed on 1 August 2022 Heard and Determined on 3 August 2022
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed with costs fixed in favour of the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'costs Assessment' 'appeals' 'balance of Convenience' 'practical Necessity']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'commercial and Corporations' 'general and Personal Insolvency'] ['stay of Execution' 'costs Assessment' 'appeals' 'balance of Convenience' 'practical Necessity']

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

Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution or Suspension of Costs Judgment / Application Filed on 1 August 2022 Heard and Determined on 3 August 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the operation or execution of the costs judgment should be stayed or suspended pending the resolution of appeals WAD278/2021 and WAD85/2022.' 'Whether the applicants demonstrated a sufficient risk of prejudice, including being forced to vacate their home, to justify a stay.' 'Whether the applicants provided a basis for assessing the merits of the relevant appeals.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants provided no grounds enabling any assessment of the merits of the appeal and, principally, no evidence indicating any real chance that the prejudice relied upon, including being forced to vacate their home, would materialise within the next 30 days; the first respondent was entitled to costs fixed at $900.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed with costs fixed in favour of the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 1 August 2022 is dismissed.' "The applicants must pay the first respondent's costs of the application, fixed in the sum of $900."]