RAJSKI v BAINTON (NO 1) [1988] NSWCA 124

RAJSKI v BAINTON (NO 1) [1988] NSWCA 124

It is not necessary to order a stay where an undertaking is given not to execute pending further order. A general objection to the bill of costs may suffice to enable the bill to take its place for contested taxation, providing relief to Dr Rajski from detailed compliance until a later stage.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Rajski; Respondent: Mr Bainton QC
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion Before Appeal
Outcome
Stay not ordered; undertaking noted; directions for taxation
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Taxation of Costs, Notice of Objection, Undertaking Not to Execute
Civil Procedure Costs Stay of Execution Taxation of Costs Notice of Objection Undertaking Not to Execute

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Rajski

Applicant

Mr Bainton QC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion Before Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of execution of the certificate of costs pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether Dr Rajski must file a detailed notice of objection given his circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

It is not necessary to order a stay where an undertaking is given not to execute pending further order. A general objection to the bill of costs may suffice to enable the bill to take its place for contested taxation, providing relief to Dr Rajski from detailed compliance until a later stage.

Court Disposition

Stay not ordered; undertaking noted; directions for taxation

Orders

  • Note the undertaking given to the Court on behalf of Mr Bainton.
  • Direct Dr Rajski to file within two days a notice of objection in general terms to the bill of costs filed.