BADER v JELIC [2010] NSWCA 203

BADER v JELIC [2010] NSWCA 203

A stay of proceedings should be granted because there is a real risk the applicants, if successful on appeal, may not recover any amount paid under a reversed judgment, especially given respondent’s limited means.

Parties
Applicant: Edward Bader; Applicant: Gerardina Bader; Respondent: Steven Jelic
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory (motion for Stay Pending Appeal)
Outcome
Stay granted pending appeal; respondents to pay applicants' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
Occupier's Liability, Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Relief
Tort Law Occupier's Liability Stay of Proceedings Interlocutory Relief

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Bader

Applicant

Gerardina Bader

Applicant

Steven Jelic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory (motion for Stay Pending Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal
  2. 2 Risk of irrecoverability if judgment enforced before appeal heard

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of proceedings should be granted because there is a real risk the applicants, if successful on appeal, may not recover any amount paid under a reversed judgment, especially given respondent’s limited means.

Court Disposition

Stay granted pending appeal; respondents to pay applicants' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • Proceedings on the judgment of 2 July 2010 in the District Court stayed pending the determination of the appeal or further order.
  • Respondents to pay applicants' costs of the motion.