Bruce Maples v Siteberg [2012] NSWSC 435

Bruce Maples v Siteberg [2012] NSWSC 435

The court dismissed the application for a stay because neither UCPR r 12.10 nor the inherent power nor section 67 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) was satisfied: the costs orders relied on were not made as a result of dismissals of proceedings initiated by the party seeking to relitigate, but in proceedings where the applicant was defendant; thus, the discretion was not enlivened to stay the proceedings until payment of previous costs.

Parties
Plaintiff: Bruce John Maples; First Defendant: Siteberg Pty Limited (ACN 052 317 414); Second Defendant: John Abrar Tenish; Third Defendant: Sevim Tenish
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application; Application for Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Costs, Inherent Power, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Equity Stay of Proceedings Costs Inherent Power Security for Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce John Maples

Plaintiff

Siteberg Pty Limited (ACN 052 317 414)

First Defendant

John Abrar Tenish

Second Defendant

Sevim Tenish

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application; Application for Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to a stay of proceedings pending payment of costs by the plaintiff in earlier proceedings under UCPR r 12.10, s 67 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), or the court's inherent power.

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the application for a stay because neither UCPR r 12.10 nor the inherent power nor section 67 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) was satisfied: the costs orders relied on were not made as a result of dismissals of proceedings initiated by the party seeking to relitigate, but in proceedings where the applicant was defendant; thus, the discretion was not enlivened to stay the proceedings until payment of previous costs.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Siteberg's notice of motion filed on 15 December 2011 dismissed with costs.
  • Exhibits on the application to be handed out.