Qureshi v De Haas [2009] NSWIRComm 46

Qureshi v De Haas [2009] NSWIRComm 46

The appellant had shown sufficient prospects to justify a stay, although the prospects were not as strong as asserted and it was not clear that the orders below would be overturned or significantly altered. On the balance of convenience, a stay was appropriate, but only on terms requiring the appellant to deposit $100,000 into a controlled monies account according to the ordered timetable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal; Stay Application in Unfair Contract Proceedings / Motion for Stay Pending Determination of the Appeal
Outcome
Stay granted on terms; costs of the motion reserved.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['unfair Contract' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'costs']

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 Leave to Appeal and Appeal; Stay Application in Unfair Contract Proceedings / Motion for Stay Pending Determination of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the decision and orders of Backman J should be stayed pending determination of the appeal.' 'Whether the appellant demonstrated a proper basis for a stay that would be fair to all parties.' "Whether a preliminary assessment of the appellant's prospects of success supported the grant of a stay." 'What terms should be imposed if a stay were granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant had shown sufficient prospects to justify a stay, although the prospects were not as strong as asserted and it was not clear that the orders below would be overturned or significantly altered. On the balance of convenience, a stay was appropriate, but only on terms requiring the appellant to deposit $100,000 into a controlled monies account according to the ordered timetable.

Court Disposition

Stay granted on terms; costs of the motion reserved.

Orders

  • ['The decision and orders of Backman J given on 28 November 2008 and 2 February 2009 in Matter No IRC 5872 of 2003 be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.' 'That the appellant deposits the sum of $100,000 into a controlled monies account in the name of Barwick Legal by way of an initial payment of $20,000...