Nolasco v Jenolan Investments Pty Limited [1985] FCA 698

Nolasco v Jenolan Investments Pty Limited [1985] FCA 698

The applicant failed to establish special circumstances to warrant a stay; the mere risk of bankruptcy is collateral and not sufficient, nor was any arguable point of law or error of fact identified in support of the appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Andre Nolasco; First Respondent: Jenolan Investments Pty. Limited; Second Respondent: Adley Investments Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 1985
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Stay Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
Stay refused, but continued for seven days to allow application for leave to appeal; costs of the application to be cross-claimants' costs in the appeal; appeal hearing to be expedited; directions hearing fixed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Appeal, Bankruptcy
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Appeal Bankruptcy

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Nolasco

Applicant

Jenolan Investments Pty. Limited

First Respondent

Adley Investments Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Stay Application Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish special circumstances to warrant a stay; the mere risk of bankruptcy is collateral and not sufficient, nor was any arguable point of law or error of fact identified in support of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Stay refused, but continued for seven days to allow application for leave to appeal; costs of the application to be cross-claimants' costs in the appeal; appeal hearing to be expedited; directions hearing fixed.

Orders

  • The existing stay be continued up to and including 25 June 1985.
  • The costs of this application be the cross-claimants' costs in the appeal.