GROSE v STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1991] NSWCA 131

GROSE v STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1991] NSWCA 131

No procedural injustice resulted from the refusal of adjournment; the claimant had opportunity to secure representation, dismissed his solicitors, and did not object to key evidence at trial. Points now raised were either inconsistent with pleadings or could not impact his liability under the guarantee. The grounds for appeal provisionally do not warrant a stay of execution.

Parties
Claimant: David Grose; Opponent: State Bank of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 1991
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Application for Variation or Discharge of Order Refusing Stay by Single Judge of Appeal
Outcome
Application for discharge or variation of the order refusing stay dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Refusal of Adjournment, Appeals, Discretionary Decisions
Practice and Procedure Stay of Execution Refusal of Adjournment Appeals Discretionary Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Grose

Claimant

State Bank of New South Wales

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Application for Variation or Discharge of Order Refusing Stay by Single Judge of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether refusal of an adjournment by the trial judge was a procedural injustice justifying a stay
  3. 3 Whether new grounds raised by the claimant are sufficient to warrant a stay given the procedural history

Ratio Decidendi

No procedural injustice resulted from the refusal of adjournment; the claimant had opportunity to secure representation, dismissed his solicitors, and did not object to key evidence at trial. Points now raised were either inconsistent with pleadings or could not impact his liability under the guarantee. The grounds for appeal provisionally do not warrant a stay of execution.

Court Disposition

Application for discharge or variation of the order refusing stay dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for discharge or variation of Meagher JA's order is dismissed with costs.