Franklins v Sandra Jamieson [2001] NSWCA 80
The Court dismissed the motion for a further stay because the grounds raised—such as evidentiary challenges, concerns regarding recovery, and the trial judge's ex parte contact for clarification—were not sufficient to disturb the District Court's judgment, particularly as part of the damages remain stayed and no persuasive ground was established for further relief.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 February 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Motion to Stay Enforcement of District Court Judgment Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Motion dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['slip and Fall' "occupier's Liability" 'improper Communication With Witness' 'stay of Judgment' 'damages']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Motion to Stay Enforcement of District Court Judgment Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether enforcement of part of the damages verdict (the $80,000 not stayed by the District Court) should be stayed pending appeal' "Effect of trial judge contacting a witness without parties' knowledge" 'Whether trial judge relied on evidence not in the record when calculating damages']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the motion for a further stay because the grounds raised—such as evidentiary challenges, concerns regarding recovery, and the trial judge's ex parte contact for clarification—were not sufficient to disturb the District Court's judgment, particularly as part of the damages remain stayed and no persuasive ground was established for further relief.
Court Disposition
Motion dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Notice of motion dismissed.' "Appellants to pay the respondent's costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment