Kessly v Bold Moves Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 263

Kessly v Bold Moves Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 263

The application for a stay was refused because the appellant did not demonstrate that a stay was necessary to protect the appeal or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, especially since any monetary order could be repaid if the appeal succeeds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Stay Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
Stay refused
Legal Topics
['stay Application' 'appeal Procedures']
['civil Procedure'] ['stay Application' 'appeal Procedures']

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 / Stay Application Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a stay should be granted pending appeal of a Tribunal order requiring the appellant to pay money']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was refused because the appellant did not demonstrate that a stay was necessary to protect the appeal or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, especially since any monetary order could be repaid if the appeal succeeds.

Court Disposition

Stay refused

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay is refused.']