Ashton v Prentice [1999] FCA 714

Ashton v Prentice [1999] FCA 714

Exceptional circumstances justifying a stay pending special leave were not established. There were not substantial prospects of success on a special leave application, and the possibility of monetary compensation meant the appeal would not be rendered futile without a stay. Thus, the application for a stay was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Andrew Craig Ashton; Respondent: Maxwell William Prentice
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Orders / Post Appeal, Application for Stay Pending Special Leave Application to the High Court
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed. Applicant to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Applications, Special Leave Applications, Bias or Disqualification of Judges, Transfers to Defeat Creditors
Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Interlocutory Applications Special Leave Applications Bias or Disqualification of Judges Transfers to Defeat Creditors

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Craig Ashton

Applicant

Maxwell William Prentice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Orders / Post Appeal, Application for Stay Pending Special Leave Application to the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay should be granted pending an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify grant of a stay
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces a risk that appeal will be rendered nugatory absent a stay

Ratio Decidendi

Exceptional circumstances justifying a stay pending special leave were not established. There were not substantial prospects of success on a special leave application, and the possibility of monetary compensation meant the appeal would not be rendered futile without a stay. Thus, the application for a stay was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed. Applicant to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • The application for a stay of the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court made on 21 May 1999 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.