Samootin v Shea [2004] NSWSC 989

Samootin v Shea [2004] NSWSC 989

Miss Samootin's application for a stay is hopeless as there is no pending special leave application to the High Court, and the Court of Appeal has dismissed prior appeals. The Supreme Court has no power to set aside the costs orders, and the stay application is refused. Indemnity costs are ordered against the applicant.

Parties
Applicant: Alexandra Samootin; First Defendant: Christopher George Shea; Second Defendant: Peter John Deans; Third Defendant: Loan Design Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: S R Deans Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Giselle M Wagner; Sixth Defendant: Adrian Holmes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application for Stay of Costs Order
Outcome
Stay of costs order refused, application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Costs Order, Special Leave to Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Practice and Procedure
Equity Appeal and New Trial Stay of Proceedings Costs Order Special Leave to Appeal Leave to Appeal Practice and Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexandra Samootin

Applicant

Christopher George Shea

First Defendant

Peter John Deans

Second Defendant

Loan Design Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

S R Deans Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Giselle M Wagner

Fifth Defendant

Adrian Holmes

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application for Stay of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has power to stay costs orders pending appellate procedures
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay pending proposed appeal to the High Court or holding summons in the Court of Appeal provides grounds for stay

Ratio Decidendi

Miss Samootin's application for a stay is hopeless as there is no pending special leave application to the High Court, and the Court of Appeal has dismissed prior appeals. The Supreme Court has no power to set aside the costs orders, and the stay application is refused. Indemnity costs are ordered against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Stay of costs order refused, application dismissed.

Orders

  • Miss Samootin to pay costs of the second to sixth defendants on the indemnity basis.
  • Costs ordered in favour of the fifth and sixth defendants may be assessed and paid forthwith.