Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd v Thi Thu Van Do [1997] IRCA 257

Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd v Thi Thu Van Do [1997] IRCA 257

Balancing the respondents' two judgments and long delay in receiving money against the risk of difficulty in recovery and the prospects of appeal, which were overall less than average, the Court granted only a conditional stay of the monetary orders requiring specified partial payments out to the respondents. No sufficient case was shown to stay Mr Hua's reinstatement, because the asserted disruption was the usual consequence of reinstatement and the order was to be treated as prima facie correct. The costs order was stayed pending appeal without opposition.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Applications for Stay of Orders Pending Appeal / Post Judgment; Pending Appeal From Orders Made on 9 July 1997
Outcome
Stay application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'reinstatement' 'compensation Orders' 'costs' 'interest' 'deductions for Tax and Social Security Payments']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'reinstatement' 'compensation Orders' 'costs' 'interest' 'deductions for Tax and Social Security Payments']

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

Applications for Stay of Orders Pending Appeal / Post Judgment; Pending Appeal From Orders Made on 9 July 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders requiring payment of amounts to the respondents should be stayed pending appeal.' 'Whether the reinstatement order concerning Mr Hua should be stayed pending appeal.' 'Whether the costs order should be stayed pending appeal.' 'Whether order 7(a) made on 9 July 1997 should be amended to address tax monies.']

Ratio Decidendi

Balancing the respondents' two judgments and long delay in receiving money against the risk of difficulty in recovery and the prospects of appeal, which were overall less than average, the Court granted only a conditional stay of the monetary orders requiring specified partial payments out to the respondents. No sufficient case was shown to stay Mr Hua's reinstatement, because the asserted disruption was the usual consequence of reinstatement and the order was to be treated as prima facie correct. The costs order was stayed pending appeal without opposition.

Court Disposition

Stay application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • ['A stay of orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6(b) is granted on condition that there be paid out, within 3 days, from the sums already paid into court, to each of the respondents, the specified respective amounts.' 'Order 7(a) made on 9 July 1997 is amended to require payment by 30 July 1997 to the solicitors of the...