Julia Farr Services Inc v Hayes [2003] NSWCA 142

Julia Farr Services Inc v Hayes [2003] NSWCA 142

The stay was refused because, although the prospects of special leave could not be described as self-evidently hopeless, no circumstances strongly or plausibly favoured a stay: there was no risk that the opponent's estate would dissipate any payment, no suggestion the claimant could not pay, and the claimant's prospective High Court application did not of itself justify depriving the opponent of the fruits of the judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings / Notice of Motion Seeking Stay of Execution of the Court of Appeal Judgment Pending Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court or Disposal of Any High Court Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings declined; costs of the opponent to be paid by the claimant.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings Pending High Court Appeal' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'prospects of Success' 'balance of Convenience' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Appellate Rights']
['procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['stay of Proceedings Pending High Court Appeal' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'prospects of Success' 'balance of Convenience' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Appellate Rights']

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

Application for Stay of Proceedings / Notice of Motion Seeking Stay of Execution of the Court of Appeal Judgment Pending Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court or Disposal of Any High Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether execution of the Court of Appeal judgment and the judgment of Maguire CCJ should be stayed pending determination of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court or any High Court appeal.' "Whether the claimant's asserted prospects of obtaining special leave to appeal justified a stay." "Whether appellate rights from the Dust Diseases Tribunal were substantive rather than procedural so as to support the claimant's proposed High Court challenge."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because, although the prospects of special leave could not be described as self-evidently hopeless, no circumstances strongly or plausibly favoured a stay: there was no risk that the opponent's estate would dissipate any payment, no suggestion the claimant could not pay, and the claimant's prospective High Court application did not of itself justify depriving the opponent of the fruits of the judgment.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings declined; costs of the opponent to be paid by the claimant.

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay of proceedings is declined.' 'Costs of the opponent are to be paid by the claimant.']