Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v RQA Accountants Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 985

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v RQA Accountants Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 985

The stay application was refused because none of the matters relied upon by Mr Surana provided a legal or material basis to stay execution of the writ of possession. The other relief sought was not susceptible of consideration on this kind of application, and there was no reason to depart from the usual order that the unsuccessful applicant pay the respondent's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion Seeking, Among Other Things, a Stay of Execution of a Writ of Possession
Outcome
Application for a stay refused; balance of the motion dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'writ of Possession' 'costs of Motion' 'small Business Mediation']
['civil Procedure' 'banking and Finance' 'property'] ['stay of Execution' 'writ of Possession' 'costs of Motion' 'small Business Mediation']

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 / Notice of Motion Seeking, Among Other Things, a Stay of Execution of a Writ of Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether execution of the writ of possession should be stayed because of Mr Surana's health issues, family and cultural hardship, lease and credit facility matters, attempted negotiation, inability to obtain legal representation, complaint processes, or financial hardship." 'Whether the additional relief sought concerning refund of monies, reversal of debit costs and alleged unfair treatment by bank staff could be considered on the motion.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was refused because none of the matters relied upon by Mr Surana provided a legal or material basis to stay execution of the writ of possession. The other relief sought was not susceptible of consideration on this kind of application, and there was no reason to depart from the usual order that the unsuccessful applicant pay the respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay refused; balance of the motion dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay is refused.' 'The balance of the motion is otherwise dismissed.' "The Applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of this motion."]