Seiko Australia Pty Ltd v Da Rin [2000] NSWCA 146

Seiko Australia Pty Ltd v Da Rin [2000] NSWCA 146

Beazley JA's refusal of a stay disclosed no error of fact or legal principle, relied on no irrelevant consideration, took account of relevant considerations, and was not so unjust or plainly wrong as to indicate error. Because the opponent's assets were sufficient to permit recovery of the judgment sum less workers' compensation repayments, the appeal would not be rendered nugatory, and the discretion to refuse a stay had not plainly miscarried.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Discharge or Variation of Orders Refusing Stays Pending Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination of Notice of Motion Filed on 7 April 2000
Outcome
The Notice of Motion filed on 7 April 2000 was dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the opponent's costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Judgment Pending Appeal' 'discretionary Appellate Review' 'recovery of Judgment Sum If Appeal Succeeds' 'contributory Negligence' 'personal Injury Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'personal Injury Negligence'] ['stay of Judgment Pending Appeal' 'discretionary Appellate Review' 'recovery of Judgment Sum If Appeal Succeeds' 'contributory Negligence' 'personal Injury Damages']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking Discharge or Variation of Orders Refusing Stays Pending Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination of Notice of Motion Filed on 7 April 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders made by Beazley JA on 27 March 2000 refusing stays should be discharged or varied.' "Whether Beazley JA's discretion miscarried under the principles in House v The King or related formulations in Wentworth v Wentworth." 'Whether the absence of undertakings or security from the opponent required a stay.' 'Whether the arguability of the appeal and the alleged difficulty of recovering the judgment sum justified a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

Beazley JA's refusal of a stay disclosed no error of fact or legal principle, relied on no irrelevant consideration, took account of relevant considerations, and was not so unjust or plainly wrong as to indicate error. Because the opponent's assets were sufficient to permit recovery of the judgment sum less workers' compensation repayments, the appeal would not be rendered nugatory, and the discretion to refuse a stay had not plainly miscarried.

Court Disposition

The Notice of Motion filed on 7 April 2000 was dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the opponent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed on 7 April 2000 is dismissed.' "The claimant is to pay the opponent's costs."]