WITHAM v HOLLOWAY (No 1) [1992] NSWCA 281

WITHAM v HOLLOWAY (No 1) [1992] NSWCA 281

The stay should not be lifted at this stage because the appellant's absence was not willful but a consequence of the solicitor's withdrawal and inadequate notice, but conditions for due prosecution and expedition of the appeal are imposed, failing which the stay may be revoked.

Parties
Appellant: John Allen Witham; Respondent: Holloway
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Stay continued on terms; procedural orders for expedition and due prosecution made.
Legal Topics
Contempt, Stay of Execution, Case Management
Practice and Procedure Contempt Stay of Execution Case Management

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Allen Witham

Appellant

Holloway

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of sentence for contempt should be lifted due to non-appearance at call-over before the Registrar

Ratio Decidendi

The stay should not be lifted at this stage because the appellant's absence was not willful but a consequence of the solicitor's withdrawal and inadequate notice, but conditions for due prosecution and expedition of the appeal are imposed, failing which the stay may be revoked.

Court Disposition

Stay continued on terms; procedural orders for expedition and due prosecution made.

Orders

  • Vacate listing before the Registrar for 20 October 1992.
  • Appeal to be called over before the Registrar on Thursday, 27 August 1992 at 11am.