Ryan v AF Concrete Pumping P/L (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 630

Ryan v AF Concrete Pumping P/L (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 630

Because the proposed appeal grounds were at least reasonably arguable and there was some risk that the plaintiff might not readily repay money if the appeal succeeded, but the grounds were limited and did not justify staying the whole outstanding balance, it was appropriate to stay execution of 15% of the judgment sum. The first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs because the application could have been resolved on the basis of the plaintiff's earlier proposal to consent to a 15% stay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Partial Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Post Judgment Application After Notice of Intention to Appeal
Outcome
Partial stay granted; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the stay application.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution Pending Appeal' 'costs of Application' 'assessment of Damages' 'whole Person Impairment' 'employer Notional Liability']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'workers Compensation'] ['stay of Execution Pending Appeal' 'costs of Application' 'assessment of Damages' 'whole Person Impairment' 'employer Notional Liability']

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

Application for Partial Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Post Judgment Application After Notice of Intention to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether execution of the outstanding judgment sum should be stayed pending the first defendant's proposed appeal." 'Whether the stay should extend to the whole outstanding amount or only part of the judgment sum.' 'Who should pay the costs of the stay application where the plaintiff had earlier proposed a stay of 15% of the judgment sum.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proposed appeal grounds were at least reasonably arguable and there was some risk that the plaintiff might not readily repay money if the appeal succeeded, but the grounds were limited and did not justify staying the whole outstanding balance, it was appropriate to stay execution of 15% of the judgment sum. The first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs because the application could have been resolved on the basis of the plaintiff's earlier proposal to consent to a 15% stay.

Court Disposition

Partial stay granted; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the stay application.

Orders

  • ['Stay the execution of 15% of the judgment sum.' "Order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for a stay."]