Donnelly v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2014] NSWCA 20

Donnelly v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2014] NSWCA 20

The application for a stay was refused because, although vacating the property would prejudice the applicant and her family, the applicant did not establish that the appeal was strong, the Bank faced prejudice from continuing inability to realise its judgment and accruing interest, and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for a Stay of Execution of a Writ of Possession Pending Appeal / Court of Appeal Motion
Outcome
Application for a stay of execution of the order for writ of possession rejected.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'writ of Possession' 'appeal Prospects' 'balance of Convenience' 'prejudice to Parties']

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

Interlocutory Application for a Stay of Execution of a Writ of Possession Pending Appeal / Court of Appeal Motion

  1. 1 ['Whether execution of the writ of possession should be stayed pending appeal.' 'Whether the applicant had established a strong case on appeal.' 'Whether the balance of convenience and prejudice to the parties favoured a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was refused because, although vacating the property would prejudice the applicant and her family, the applicant did not establish that the appeal was strong, the Bank faced prejudice from continuing inability to realise its judgment and accruing interest, and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of execution of the order for writ of possession rejected.

Orders

  • ['Reject the application for a stay of execution of the order for writ of possession.' 'Applicant to pay the costs of the respondent to the motion.']