Mio Amico Pty Ltd v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group [2013] NSWCA 353

Mio Amico Pty Ltd v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group [2013] NSWCA 353

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable case for appeal. There was no reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the reasons given by Davies J for refusing the adjournment, nor was there procedural unfairness in the timing of those reasons. The applicants were unable to establish that a stay of execution of the judgment was warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'apprehended Bias' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'judgment Enforcement']
['civil Procedure'] ['stay of Execution' 'apprehended Bias' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'judgment Enforcement']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness due to reasons for refusing adjournment being reserved and delivered after hearing the substantive matter' 'Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the primary judge based on reasons given for refusing the adjournment' 'Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable case for appeal. There was no reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the reasons given by Davies J for refusing the adjournment, nor was there procedural unfairness in the timing of those reasons. The applicants were unable to establish that a stay of execution of the judgment was warranted.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' notice of motion filed 9 September 2013 be dismissed." "The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]