Parras Holdings Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] FCA 644

Parras Holdings Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] FCA 644

The stay was refused because there was no substantial prospect that special leave to appeal would be granted, the practical risks of bankruptcy or liquidation were not likely to stifle preparation and prosecution of the special leave application, and the balance of convenience favoured refusal because the bank would suffer severe and irreparable loss if a stay were granted and the appeal were unsuccessful.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application for Stay of Orders / Notice of Motion Filed 27 April 1999 Seeking a Stay of Orders Pending an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Application refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'irreparable Loss']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['stay of Orders' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'irreparable Loss']

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

Practice and Procedure; Application for Stay of Orders / Notice of Motion Filed 27 April 1999 Seeking a Stay of Orders Pending an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Full Court should stay its orders pending the applicants' application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia." 'Whether there was a substantial prospect that special leave to appeal would be granted.' 'Whether the balance of convenience and potential loss to the respondent favoured granting or refusing a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because there was no substantial prospect that special leave to appeal would be granted, the practical risks of bankruptcy or liquidation were not likely to stifle preparation and prosecution of the special leave application, and the balance of convenience favoured refusal because the bank would suffer severe and irreparable loss if a stay were granted and the appeal were unsuccessful.

Court Disposition

Application refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The relief sought by the notice of motion filed 27 April 1999 be refused, with costs.']