COLOURRENDER (AUSTRALIA) Pty Ltd v Sarkis [2022] NSWCATAP 291

COLOURRENDER (AUSTRALIA) Pty Ltd v Sarkis [2022] NSWCATAP 291

The interests of justice do not require granting a stay of the judgment, given the concession that the appellant can fund the judgment sum and lack of sufficient evidence substantiating inability to pay; the Tribunal’s jurisdictional issue is arguable, but not certain to succeed; respondents are entitled to the fruits of the judgment unless proper basis for stay demonstrated.

Parties
Appellant: COLOURRENDER (AUSTRALIA) Pty Ltd; First Respondent: George Sarkis; Second Respondent: Sonya Sarkis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for a Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed (with partial variation of judgment sum)
Legal Topics
Stay of Orders, Jurisdiction, Home Building Act, Costs
Civil Procedure Stay of Orders Jurisdiction Home Building Act 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

COLOURRENDER (AUSTRALIA) Pty Ltd

Appellant

George Sarkis

First Respondent

Sonya Sarkis

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for a Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding time limitations under the Home Building Act
  3. 3 Adequacy of evidence substantiating inability to pay judgment sum

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice do not require granting a stay of the judgment, given the concession that the appellant can fund the judgment sum and lack of sufficient evidence substantiating inability to pay; the Tribunal’s jurisdictional issue is arguable, but not certain to succeed; respondents are entitled to the fruits of the judgment unless proper basis for stay demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed (with partial variation of judgment sum)

Orders

  • Pending further order of the Appeal Panel, order 2 made at first instance is effective only to the extent requiring appellant to pay respondent $64,000.00.
  • The Application for a Stay is otherwise dismissed.