Vale v Vale & Anor [2001] NSWCA 124

Vale v Vale & Anor [2001] NSWCA 124

The stay was refused because, although the delay was disregarded and the appeal was treated as arguable, the appeal was not strong, the relevant finding below was essentially factual, the evidence indicated that the applicant or her husband had substantial assets from which the costs could have been paid, there was no suggestion the insurer could not repay the costs if the appeal succeeded, and bankruptcy was unlikely to prevent the appeal from being prosecuted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal Related Notice of Motion Seeking a Stay of Execution of a Costs Order / Court of Appeal Motion Pending Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution Pending Appeal' 'costs Assessment and Judgment for Costs' "bankruptcy Notice and Creditors' Petition" 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'personal Injury Claim Arising From Motor Vehicle Accident']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'bankruptcy' 'motor Accidents'] ['stay of Execution Pending Appeal' 'costs Assessment and Judgment for Costs' "bankruptcy Notice and Creditors' Petition" 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'personal Injury Claim Arising From Motor Vehicle Accident']

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

Appeal Related Notice of Motion Seeking a Stay of Execution of a Costs Order / Court of Appeal Motion Pending Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether execution of the District Court costs order should be stayed pending the applicant's appeal." "Whether the applicant's delay in seeking a stay should count against her." "Whether the applicant's prospects of success on appeal justified a stay." 'Whether enforcement of the assessed costs judgment and bankruptcy proceedings would impede or bring an end to the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because, although the delay was disregarded and the appeal was treated as arguable, the appeal was not strong, the relevant finding below was essentially factual, the evidence indicated that the applicant or her husband had substantial assets from which the costs could have been paid, there was no suggestion the insurer could not repay the costs if the appeal succeeded, and bankruptcy was unlikely to prevent the appeal from being prosecuted.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 27 March 2001 be dismissed with costs.']