Rubino v Pineview Properties Pty Ltd (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 340

Rubino v Pineview Properties Pty Ltd (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 340

No grounds were shown for a stay of enforcement of judgments because no realistic prospect of appeal success was demonstrated and the applicant did not identify specific errors in the prior reasoning. The application to stay costs and freezing orders failed because costs had not been assessed and the freezing order was not itself an order for execution. The proposed amendments to the notice of motion were substantive and misconceived, and the application to amend was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution, Costs, and Freezing Orders; Application to Further Amend Notice of Motion
Outcome
Applications dismissed; applicant to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'costs' 'freezing Orders' 'amendment of Notice of Motion']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay of Execution' 'costs' 'freezing Orders' 'amendment of Notice of Motion']

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

Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution, Costs, and Freezing Orders; Application to Further Amend Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a realistic prospect that a proposed appeal will succeed so as to justify a stay of execution of judgments' 'Whether prejudice to the applicant from execution of judgments is established' 'Whether an application to stay costs orders and freezing orders is made out' 'Whether amendment to notice of motion to seek additional substantive relief should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

No grounds were shown for a stay of enforcement of judgments because no realistic prospect of appeal success was demonstrated and the applicant did not identify specific errors in the prior reasoning. The application to stay costs and freezing orders failed because costs had not been assessed and the freezing order was not itself an order for execution. The proposed amendments to the notice of motion were substantive and misconceived, and the application to amend was refused.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; applicant to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ["Refuse the application for leave to further amend the notice of motion in terms of the 'Second Amended Notice of Motion' dated 5 March 2018." 'Order that the motion be dismissed.' "Order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the motion."]