Morgan v Rankin (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 183

Morgan v Rankin (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 183

The application for a stay was dismissed because there was no evidence that the plaintiffs would be unable to repay the verdict monies if the proposed appeal succeeded, while the evidence showed they had raised substantial funds for investment, were employed, and were long-term Newcastle residents; on balance it was more appropriate to preserve the plaintiffs' rights to their verdict than to allow the defendants to delay payment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application by the First and Third Defendants for a Stay of Orders for Payment to the Plaintiffs Pending a Proposed Appeal
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'risk of Repayment by Judgment Creditors' 'costs of Application']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'risk of Repayment by Judgment Creditors' 'costs of Application']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application by the First and Third Defendants for a Stay of Orders for Payment to the Plaintiffs Pending a Proposed Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the orders for payment to the plaintiffs made on 14 August 2008 should be stayed pending the first and third defendants' proposed appeal." 'Whether there was evidence that the plaintiffs would be unable to repay the verdict monies if the proposed appeal succeeded.' "Whether the defendants' claimed financial prejudice justified delaying payment to the plaintiffs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was dismissed because there was no evidence that the plaintiffs would be unable to repay the verdict monies if the proposed appeal succeeded, while the evidence showed they had raised substantial funds for investment, were employed, and were long-term Newcastle residents; on balance it was more appropriate to preserve the plaintiffs' rights to their verdict than to allow the defendants to delay payment.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'The affidavit filed in support of the application is returned.' 'The order for costs made on 14 August 2008 is confirmed.' "The first and third defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs of today's application."]