McNeill v Seltsam Pty Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 51

The stay was refused because the defendant had not demonstrated an appropriate case: no notice of appeal had been prepared, the proposed grounds remained subject to senior counsel's advice and were speculative, and a commercial desire to upset the judgment was not sufficient of itself to justify a stay.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 14 September 2005
Procedural Posture: Application for Stay of Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Defendant's Application for a Stay After Judgment and Before Any Notice of Appeal Was Prepared
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Legal Topics: ['stay of Proceedings' 'appeal on a Point of Law' 'presumption That Judgment Is Correct']

['civil Procedure'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'appeal on a Point of Law' 'presumption That Judgment Is Correct']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Defendant's Application for a Stay After Judgment and Before Any Notice of Appeal Was Prepared

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the defendant had demonstrated an appropriate case for a stay of proceedings in respect of the judgment given on 5 September 2005.' "Whether a contemplated appeal, possible grounds of appeal, and the defendant's commercial desire to challenge the judgment were sufficient to justify a stay."]

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

["The defendant's application for a stay is refused." 'The application is dismissed.']