Yoo v Toppro Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] NSWSC 734

Yoo v Toppro Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] NSWSC 734

There were no reasonably arguable questions identified for determination by the appellate court and no sufficient basis to support the grant of a stay, as the legal principles relied on by the applicants did not raise issues contrary to established authority. Any potential detriment or irreparable harm was mitigated by undertakings and did not warrant a stay in the absence of arguable appeal grounds.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant on First and Second Cross Claims: Il Nam Yoo; First Defendant: Toppro Pty Ltd; Second Defendant/cross Claimant on First Cross Claim: Ok Ja Joo; Third Defendant: Jae Joo Kim; Fourth Defendant/cross Claimant on Second Cross Claim: Wealth Wisdom Investments Limited; Second Cross Defendant on First and Second Cross Claims: Jin Hee Hong
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal / Decision on Interlocutory Application (stay Pending Appeal)
Outcome
Notice of Motion for stay dismissed; stay granted for 14 days pending appeal, subject to undertakings; costs ordered against Second and Fourth Defendants.
Legal Topics
Stay of Orders Pending Appeal, Equitable Assignment of Interests, Appellate Procedure
Equity Corporations Law Civil Procedure Stay of Orders Pending Appeal Equitable Assignment of Interests Appellate Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Il Nam Yoo

Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant on First and Second Cross Claims

Toppro Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Ok Ja Joo

Second Defendant/cross Claimant on First Cross Claim

Jae Joo Kim

Third Defendant

Wealth Wisdom Investments Limited

Fourth Defendant/cross Claimant on Second Cross Claim

Jin Hee Hong

Second Cross Defendant on First and Second Cross Claims

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal / Decision on Interlocutory Application (stay Pending Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of judgment should be granted pending appeal or application for leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonably arguable questions for appellate determination
  3. 3 Whether refusal of stay would cause irreparable harm

Ratio Decidendi

There were no reasonably arguable questions identified for determination by the appellate court and no sufficient basis to support the grant of a stay, as the legal principles relied on by the applicants did not raise issues contrary to established authority. Any potential detriment or irreparable harm was mitigated by undertakings and did not warrant a stay in the absence of arguable appeal grounds.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion for stay dismissed; stay granted for 14 days pending appeal, subject to undertakings; costs ordered against Second and Fourth Defendants.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion filed 1 June 2016 seeking stay is dismissed.
  • Second and Fourth Defendants (Mrs Joo and Wealth Wisdom Investments Limited) to pay costs of the motion as agreed or as assessed.