AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS LTD v BALTINOS [1995] NSWCA 27

AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS LTD v BALTINOS [1995] NSWCA 27

The majority (Priestley JA and Meagher JA) held that Cole JA made no error of principle in refusing to grant a stay: impecuniosity and the presence of arguable grounds for appeal are relevant factors but not determinative in themselves; the grounds of appeal were not sufficiently strong in the circumstances to justify a stay. Kirby P dissented, finding that error in approach was shown and would have discharged the order, but majority dismissed the motion.

Parties
Claimant: Australian Consolidated Press Ltd; Opponent: Solon Baltinos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Application / Court of Appeal Motion to Discharge Stay Orders
Outcome
motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Discharge of Orders, Stay of Execution, Impecuniosity, Public Interest Defence, Prospects of Success
Practice and Procedure Defamation Appeal Law Discharge of Orders Stay of Execution Impecuniosity Public Interest Defence Prospects of Success

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Consolidated Press Ltd

Claimant

Solon Baltinos

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application / Court of Appeal Motion to Discharge Stay Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether error of principle was shown in refusing stay of execution
  2. 2 Whether impecuniosity of judgment creditor and prospects of appeal success were properly taken into account
  3. 3 Whether the public interest defence was arguable in defamation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Priestley JA and Meagher JA) held that Cole JA made no error of principle in refusing to grant a stay: impecuniosity and the presence of arguable grounds for appeal are relevant factors but not determinative in themselves; the grounds of appeal were not sufficiently strong in the circumstances to justify a stay. Kirby P dissented, finding that error in approach was shown and would have discharged the order, but majority dismissed the motion.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Claimant to pay opponent's costs