CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Shining Pty Ltd (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1676

CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Shining Pty Ltd (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1676

A stay was granted because the plaintiff had an arguable appeal on the construction of the mortgage and collateral documents, and without a stay there was a real risk that discharge of the mortgages would leave the appeal with no practical utility. The proposed conditions were refused because they would not preserve the pre-judgment status quo but would put the third and fourth defendants in a better position.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Stay of Order Pending Appeal / After Determination of Separate Questions and Orders Made by Consent; Plaintiff's Appeal Filed and Pending in the Supreme Court of Nsw, Court of Appeal
Outcome
Stay granted in accordance with the orders sought by the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'mortgages' 'real Property Act Registration' 'powers of Attorney']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law'] ['stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'mortgages' 'real Property Act Registration' 'powers of Attorney']

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

Notice of Motion for Stay of Order Pending Appeal / After Determination of Separate Questions and Orders Made by Consent; Plaintiff's Appeal Filed and Pending in the Supreme Court of Nsw, Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether order 5 requiring the plaintiff to provide discharges of registered mortgages should be stayed until final determination of the plaintiff's appeal." 'Whether the plaintiff had an arguable basis for the appeal.' 'Whether refusal of a stay would render the appeal futile or nugatory.' "Whether any stay should be conditional on terms proposed by the third and fourth defendants concerning priority for their solicitor's charge and security over potential claims."]

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was granted because the plaintiff had an arguable appeal on the construction of the mortgage and collateral documents, and without a stay there was a real risk that discharge of the mortgages would leave the appeal with no practical utility. The proposed conditions were refused because they would not preserve the pre-judgment status quo but would put the third and fourth defendants in a better position.

Court Disposition

Stay granted in accordance with the orders sought by the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ["Order 5 of the orders made on 11 September 2020 be stayed until the final determination of the plaintiff's appeal in the Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Appeal proceeding number 2020/285372."]