Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1735

Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1735

It is inappropriate to grant a stay of interlocutory orders designed to maintain the status quo, absent clear error in the original decision or changed circumstances; the applicant has not established sufficient grounds for a stay.

Parties
Applicant: Gregory Eric Rogers; First Respondent: Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd ACN 107 746 798; Second Respondent: Asset Loan Company Pty Ltd ACN 101 054 997; Third Respondent: Paul Alexander Sydney Hare; Fourth Respondent: Russell Frank Percival; Fifth Respondent: Judith Lorraine Hare as trustee for the Hare Property Trust; Sixth Respondent: Riverstone Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee of the Percival Family Trust No 2
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Stay Pending Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Relief, Stay of Orders, Land Ownership Disputes
Property Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Relief Stay of Orders Land Ownership Disputes

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Eric Rogers

Applicant

Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd ACN 107 746 798

First Respondent

Asset Loan Company Pty Ltd ACN 101 054 997

Second Respondent

Paul Alexander Sydney Hare

Third Respondent

Russell Frank Percival

Fourth Respondent

Judith Lorraine Hare as trustee for the Hare Property Trust

Fifth Respondent

Riverstone Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee of the Percival Family Trust No 2

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Stay Pending Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of interlocutory orders concerning land should be granted pending leave to appeal
  2. 2 Appropriateness of revisiting previous interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

It is inappropriate to grant a stay of interlocutory orders designed to maintain the status quo, absent clear error in the original decision or changed circumstances; the applicant has not established sufficient grounds for a stay.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • The application for a stay of judgment is refused.
  • Costs are reserved.