Prime Capital Securities Pty Limited v Sara [2016] NSWCA 171

Prime Capital Securities Pty Limited v Sara [2016] NSWCA 171

The application for an urgent stay of the writ of possession must be dismissed because the writ had already been executed and there was no basis shown to justify a stay or setting aside of the default judgment in the absence of an arguable defence.

Parties
First Applicant: Joseph Sara; Second Applicant: Assaf Sara; First Respondent: Gadens Lawyers; Second Respondent: Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application for Urgent Stay in Court of Appeal After Execution of Writ of Possession
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Writ of Possession, Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment
Practice and Procedure Stay of Writ of Possession Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Sara

First Applicant

Assaf Sara

Second Applicant

Gadens Lawyers

First Respondent

Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application for Urgent Stay in Court of Appeal After Execution of Writ of Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should grant a stay of a writ of possession that had already been executed
  2. 2 Whether applicants established an arguable defence justifying the setting aside of default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an urgent stay of the writ of possession must be dismissed because the writ had already been executed and there was no basis shown to justify a stay or setting aside of the default judgment in the absence of an arguable defence.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion filed in this Court on 11 July 2016 is dismissed with costs