SAKHA v SANDHURST TRUSTEES LIMITED [1999] NSWCA 160

SAKHA v SANDHURST TRUSTEES LIMITED [1999] NSWCA 160

A stay was refused because the amount involved was relatively small, there had been almost 12 months' delay, no leave to appeal or extension of time had yet been granted, and the proposed appeals did not appear to have strong prospects, particularly the proposed appeal concerning wrongful detention of goods. If leave were later granted, a further stay application could be made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Hearing of an Application for Leave to Appeal and Associated Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal / Notice of Motion in the New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of Motion of 12 April 1999 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'delay' 'prospects of Success' 'rental Arrears' 'wrongful Detention of Goods']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'delay' 'prospects of Success' 'rental Arrears' 'wrongful Detention of Goods']

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

Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Hearing of an Application for Leave to Appeal and Associated Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal / Notice of Motion in the New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judgments and orders of Armitage DCJ should be stayed pending the hearing of an application for leave to appeal and an associated application for extension of time to appeal.' "Whether the applicants' delay, absence of leave to appeal, and prospects of success justified refusing a stay."]

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was refused because the amount involved was relatively small, there had been almost 12 months' delay, no leave to appeal or extension of time had yet been granted, and the proposed appeals did not appear to have strong prospects, particularly the proposed appeal concerning wrongful detention of goods. If leave were later granted, a further stay application could be made.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion of 12 April 1999 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion of 12 April 1999 is dismissed with costs.']