Wilcox v Richardson & Anor [1999] NSWCA 329

Wilcox v Richardson & Anor [1999] NSWCA 329

The stay was refused because the costs orders were final orders made in 1997, no High Court challenge had been made to those orders, and a stay would prejudice the judgment creditor by preventing steps toward bankruptcy proceedings against Mr French, while the Federal Court could preserve appellate rights by adjourning any bankruptcy petition. The Court also agreed with Sheller JA's view that, if the point sought to be agitated were good, it could be pursued by the liquidator if the company were put into liquidation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution / Court of Appeal Notice of Motion After Dismissal of Motion to Re Open; Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court Sought
Outcome
Stay refused; notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'costs Orders' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'bankruptcy Petition' 'winding Up Proceedings' 're Opening Final Judgment']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'corporations'] ['stay of Execution' 'costs Orders' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'bankruptcy Petition' 'winding Up Proceedings' 're Opening Final Judgment']

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 for Stay of Execution / Court of Appeal Notice of Motion After Dismissal of Motion to Re Open; Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court Sought

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether execution of costs orders made by the Court of Appeal in July 1997 and perfected in September 1997 should be stayed.' 'Whether the possible pursuit of special leave to appeal to the High Court justified a stay.' 'Whether a stay should be granted where it would prevent the judgment creditor from presenting a bankruptcy petition against Mr French.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the costs orders were final orders made in 1997, no High Court challenge had been made to those orders, and a stay would prejudice the judgment creditor by preventing steps toward bankruptcy proceedings against Mr French, while the Federal Court could preserve appellate rights by adjourning any bankruptcy petition. The Court also agreed with Sheller JA's view that, if the point sought to be agitated were good, it could be pursued by the liquidator if the company were put into liquidation.

Court Disposition

Stay refused; notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed with costs.']