Ceccattini & 1 Ors v ICM 2000 P/L & 1 Ors [2000] NSWSC 174

Ceccattini & 1 Ors v ICM 2000 P/L & 1 Ors [2000] NSWSC 174

A stay of the orders was refused because the plaintiffs delayed their application without justification, contrary to the overriding purpose of just, quick and cheap resolution of disputes, and the issue of stay should more appropriately be dealt with by the Court of Appeal, which will be seized of any application for leave to appeal.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Gualtiero Ceccattini; Second Plaintiff: Emilio de Michelis; First Defendant: ICM 2000 Pty Limited (ACN 072 573 785); Second Defendant: Westpac Industries Pty Limited (ACN 069 592 034)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Orders Pending Potential Appeal
Outcome
Stay not granted
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Delay in Litigation, Application for Leave to Appeal, Overriding Purpose in Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Delay in Litigation Application for Leave to Appeal Overriding Purpose in Civil 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gualtiero Ceccattini

First Plaintiff

Emilio de Michelis

Second Plaintiff

ICM 2000 Pty Limited (ACN 072 573 785)

First Defendant

Westpac Industries Pty Limited (ACN 069 592 034)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Orders Pending Potential Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of earlier interlocutory orders should be granted pending an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of the orders was refused because the plaintiffs delayed their application without justification, contrary to the overriding purpose of just, quick and cheap resolution of disputes, and the issue of stay should more appropriately be dealt with by the Court of Appeal, which will be seized of any application for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Stay not granted

Orders

  • Application for stay refused
  • Plaintiffs to pay costs of the notice of motion on an indemnity basis, forthwith