Baseline Constructions Pty. Ltd. v. Classic Group Painting Services Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2006] NSWCA 123

In the absence of evidence of appreciable risk that payment would not be recoverable, and where the appeal is only arguable rather than strong, an extension of relief is not warranted.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 15 May 2006
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion / Application for Extension of Restraining Order Pending Appeal
Outcome: Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics: ['stay of Proceedings' 'appeal' 'natural Justice']

['civil Procedure'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'appeal' 'natural Justice']

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

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application for Extension of Restraining Order Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether an extension of a restraining order should be granted pending the determination of an appeal' 'Whether relief should be granted in the absence of evidence of risk to recoverability if payment made' 'Whether the alleged denial of natural justice amounts to a strong case on appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of evidence of appreciable risk that payment would not be recoverable, and where the appeal is only arguable rather than strong, an extension of relief is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

["Claimant to pay the opponent's costs of the Notice of Motion." 'Exhibits may be returned.']