DANZEY v NEVADA PTY LIMITED [1995] NSWCA 116

DANZEY v NEVADA PTY LIMITED [1995] NSWCA 116

A stay should not be granted because the applicants occupied the premises in defiance of the board, did not seek or obtain approval as required, and are not entitled to protection for occupation in breach of company articles; the board's power and discretion were properly exercised and upheld by the trial judge.

Parties
Appellant: Danzey; Appellant: Mr and Mrs Teitzel; Respondent: Nevada Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Court of Appeal, Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Company Articles, Exclusive Occupation Rights, Approval to Let Premises, Stay of Execution
Property Law Corporate Law Company Articles Exclusive Occupation Rights Approval to Let Premises Stay of Execution

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danzey

Appellant

Mr and Mrs Teitzel

Appellant

Nevada Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Court of Appeal, Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of the writ of possession should be granted to allow for further application to the board under Article 22
  2. 2 Whether occupation of unit 102 was in breach of the articles of Nevada Pty Limited

Ratio Decidendi

A stay should not be granted because the applicants occupied the premises in defiance of the board, did not seek or obtain approval as required, and are not entitled to protection for occupation in breach of company articles; the board's power and discretion were properly exercised and upheld by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • application for stay dismissed
  • applicants to pay costs