Taheri v Vitek [2013] NSWCA 438

Taheri v Vitek [2013] NSWCA 438

The stay was extended because, although the appeals faced considerable obstacles, they were not shown to be hopeless, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice favoured a temporary stay where the applicant offered substantial protective terms: a charge over her Seaforth home, undertakings not to dissipate assets and to prosecute the appeals expeditiously, and steps to sell two George Street properties and pay net proceeds into Court. Those terms improved the respondents' position by making them secured creditors and provided protection pending an expedited appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Application for Continuation of a Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Stay of execution pending appeal extended until further order on terms; no order as to costs, with costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'security for Judgment Debt' 'undertakings' 'expedition of Appeals']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'security for Judgment Debt' 'undertakings' 'expedition of Appeals']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Application for Continuation of a Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's appeals were so weak or hopeless that a stay pending appeal should not be continued." 'Whether the balance of convenience and interests of justice favoured extending the stay of execution pending appeal.' "Whether undertakings and a charge over the applicant's property adequately protected the respondents as judgment creditors."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was extended because, although the appeals faced considerable obstacles, they were not shown to be hopeless, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice favoured a temporary stay where the applicant offered substantial protective terms: a charge over her Seaforth home, undertakings not to dissipate assets and to prosecute the appeals expeditiously, and steps to sell two George Street properties and pay net proceeds into Court. Those terms improved the respondents' position by making them secured creditors and provided protection pending an expedited appeal.

Court Disposition

Stay of execution pending appeal extended until further order on terms; no order as to costs, with costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • ['I note that the existing undertaking in paragraph 1 of the short minutes of order dated 19 June 2013 continues, but is subject to the following orders and undertakings.' 'The applicant undertakes to the Court that she will prosecute with due despatch proceedings 2013/200165 and 2013/364156 and will to that end...