Kokontis v Moran [2018] NSWCATAP 81

Kokontis v Moran [2018] NSWCATAP 81

The stay was refused because Mr Kokontis did not demonstrate that the case warranted the exercise of the discretion under s 43 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The order under appeal was a money order that could be reversed if the appeal succeeded, the evidence indicated Mr Moran had capacity to repay, Mr Kokontis gave insufficient evidence that he was unable to pay, and the successful party was entitled to the benefit of the Tribunal's decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal Panel Application for a Stay of the Decision Under Appeal / Application for Stay Refused
Outcome
The application for a stay of the decision under appeal is refused.
Legal Topics
['stay of Decision Under Appeal' 'effectiveness of Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'prejudice to Parties' 'residential Building Work']
['practice and Procedure' 'home Building'] ['stay of Decision Under Appeal' 'effectiveness of Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'prejudice to Parties' 'residential Building Work']

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

Appeal Panel Application for a Stay of the Decision Under Appeal / Application for Stay Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the operation of the decision under appeal should be stayed under s 43 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether refusal of a stay would render the appeal useless or ineffective.' 'Whether the applicant demonstrated prejudice or inability to pay sufficient to justify a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because Mr Kokontis did not demonstrate that the case warranted the exercise of the discretion under s 43 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The order under appeal was a money order that could be reversed if the appeal succeeded, the evidence indicated Mr Moran had capacity to repay, Mr Kokontis gave insufficient evidence that he was unable to pay, and the successful party was entitled to the benefit of the Tribunal's decision.

Court Disposition

The application for a stay of the decision under appeal is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay of the decision under appeal is refused.']