Burriss v Hallit [2014] NSWCATAP 39

Burriss v Hallit [2014] NSWCATAP 39

The stay was refused because the appellant did not show that staying the termination and possession orders was reasonably necessary to secure the effectiveness of the appeal. The appeal appeared to concern the rent ledger, alleged unrecorded payments and the consent order about arrears, not the termination or vacant possession orders, and those issues would not be rendered ineffective or abortive if possession proceeded. The balance of convenience and competing rights favoured the respondents, who had obtained a warrant and arranged its execution, while the appellant mainly sought more time to move and had delayed pressing the stay application until the day before execution. The interests...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal; Interlocutory Application for Stay / Appeal Panel Hearing of Urgent Stay Application Pending Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appear was granted to the parties' representatives, and the appellant's application for a stay was refused.
Legal Topics
['civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'order for Possession' 'warrant for Possession' 'rent Arrears']
['administrative Law' 'residential Tenancy' 'civil Procedure'] ['civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'order for Possession' 'warrant for Possession' 'rent Arrears']

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

Internal Appeal; Interlocutory Application for Stay / Appeal Panel Hearing of Urgent Stay Application Pending Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant had made out an appropriate case for a stay of the Consumer and Commercial Division orders pending determination of the appeal.' 'Whether a stay of the termination and vacant possession orders was reasonably necessary to secure the effectiveness of the appeal.' 'Whether the balance of convenience, competing rights of the parties and interests of justice supported granting a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the appellant did not show that staying the termination and possession orders was reasonably necessary to secure the effectiveness of the appeal. The appeal appeared to concern the rent ledger, alleged unrecorded payments and the consent order about arrears, not the termination or vacant possession orders, and those issues would not be rendered ineffective or abortive if possession proceeded. The balance of convenience and competing rights favoured the respondents, who had obtained a warrant and arranged its execution, while the appellant mainly sought more time to move and had delayed pressing the stay application until the day before execution. The interests...

Court Disposition

Leave to appear was granted to the parties' representatives, and the appellant's application for a stay was refused.

Orders

  • ['Mr Gray and Mr Torcellato have leave to appear and represent the appellant and the respondents, respectively, at the hearing on 6 August 2014.' "The appellant's application for a stay is refused."]