CADELINA v NORRIS [1994] NSWCA 46

CADELINA v NORRIS [1994] NSWCA 46

There are no grounds to grant a stay as the opponent has considerable assets and there is no risk of absconding; thus, the opponent is entitled to enforce the judgment.

Parties
Applicant: Cadelina; Opponent: Norris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 1994
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution / Motion Before the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Judgment Enforcement
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cadelina

Applicant

Norris

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Execution / Motion Before the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted regarding the judgment sum.

Ratio Decidendi

There are no grounds to grant a stay as the opponent has considerable assets and there is no risk of absconding; thus, the opponent is entitled to enforce the judgment.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution is dismissed