Roufas v Action Insulations Engineers P/L & Ors (Ruling) [2005] NSWDDT 40

Roufas v Action Insulations Engineers P/L & Ors (Ruling) [2005] NSWDDT 40

The stay was refused because no circumstances were shown to justify departing from the general rule that the judgment at first instance is correct and the successful plaintiff should not be deprived of judgment fruits; arguable appeal grounds had not been shown, the defendants had not decided whether to appeal, the plaintiff had financial means such that any sums would be recoverable if an appeal succeeded, and no irreparable harm would be done by refusing a stay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings in Respect of the Amount Assessed for Economic Loss / Ruling After Judgment on Defendants' Application for a Limited Stay to Assess Prospects of Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay refused; defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs; third, fourth and fifth defendants granted a further seven days to pay judgment monies to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'appeal Prospects' 'economic Loss Assessment' 'costs' 'extension of Time for Payment of Judgment Monies']
['civil Procedure' 'dust Diseases Litigation'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'appeal Prospects' 'economic Loss Assessment' 'costs' 'extension of Time for Payment of Judgment Monies']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings in Respect of the Amount Assessed for Economic Loss / Ruling After Judgment on Defendants' Application for a Limited Stay to Assess Prospects of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third, fourth and fifth defendants should be granted a stay of proceedings in respect of the amount assessed for economic loss while they assess prospects of appeal.' 'Whether circumstances warranted departure from the general rule that a judgment at first instance is prima facie correct and the successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because no circumstances were shown to justify departing from the general rule that the judgment at first instance is correct and the successful plaintiff should not be deprived of judgment fruits; arguable appeal grounds had not been shown, the defendants had not decided whether to appeal, the plaintiff had financial means such that any sums would be recoverable if an appeal succeeded, and no irreparable harm would be done by refusing a stay.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused; defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs; third, fourth and fifth defendants granted a further seven days to pay judgment monies to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ["The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'The third, fourth and fifth defendants are granted an extension of a further seven days for the judgment monies to be paid to the plaintiff.']