HANSEN FAMILY INVESTMENTS & ANOR v. LATZ [2005] NSWSC 454

HANSEN FAMILY INVESTMENTS & ANOR v. LATZ [2005] NSWSC 454

The stay was refused as a matter of discretion because the respondent's extraordinary circumstances, including imminent death from malignant mesothelioma and the serious impact of even brief delay, outweighed the applicants' asserted prejudice. Refusal of a stay would not necessarily prevent the applicants from seeking special leave or from raising any issue about the validity of the Tribunal proceedings after judgment, and the proposed grounds did not justify the detriment to the respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for a Stay of Orders Dismissing a Summons Seeking Orders Pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (nsw) / After Dismissal of the Cross Vesting Summons and Before an Intended Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for a stay order dismissed.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Special Leave Application' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (nsw)' 'imminent Death of Plaintiff' 'prejudice and Discretionary Factors' 'asbestos Exposure and Malignant Mesothelioma']
['civil Procedure' 'cross Vesting' 'stay of Proceedings or Orders' 'dust Diseases Litigation'] ['stay Pending Special Leave Application' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (nsw)' 'imminent Death of Plaintiff' 'prejudice and Discretionary Factors' 'asbestos Exposure and Malignant Mesothelioma']

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 a Stay of Orders Dismissing a Summons Seeking Orders Pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (nsw) / After Dismissal of the Cross Vesting Summons and Before an Intended Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had power or should determine the stay application where the dismissed summons did not involve the grant of relief or remedy to be stayed.' 'Whether a stay should be granted to allow the applicants to file an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court and seek to link it with BHP Billiton Limited v. Utting & Anor.' 'Whether the detriment to the respondent, who was facing imminent death from malignant mesothelioma, outweighed any prejudice to the applicants if a stay were refused.' "Whether refusal of a stay would render the applicants' proposed special leave application or arguments about validity of the Tribunal proceedings nugatory."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused as a matter of discretion because the respondent's extraordinary circumstances, including imminent death from malignant mesothelioma and the serious impact of even brief delay, outweighed the applicants' asserted prejudice. Refusal of a stay would not necessarily prevent the applicants from seeking special leave or from raising any issue about the validity of the Tribunal proceedings after judgment, and the proposed grounds did not justify the detriment to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay order dismissed.

Orders

  • ['I dismiss the application for a stay order.' "I order the applicants pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the stay application."]