NEVILLE v ABBOUD [1996] NSWCA 389

NEVILLE v ABBOUD [1996] NSWCA 389

The applicants did not satisfy the onus of demonstrating that a stay was appropriate in the circumstances; a stay was refused but a protective undertaking was ordered to cover repayment if the appeal is successful.

Parties
Appellant: John Patrick Neville; Appellant: Allison Linsley Neville; Respondent: Yolla Abboud
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Application by Notice of Motion / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, subject to respondent's undertaking to secure repayment if appeal is successful.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Damages, Misrepresentation, False and Misleading Conduct
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Damages Misrepresentation False and Misleading Conduct

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Patrick Neville

Appellant

Allison Linsley Neville

Appellant

Yolla Abboud

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application by Notice of Motion / Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution of judgment should be granted pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not satisfy the onus of demonstrating that a stay was appropriate in the circumstances; a stay was refused but a protective undertaking was ordered to cover repayment if the appeal is successful.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, subject to respondent's undertaking to secure repayment if appeal is successful.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Respondent to provide security in a form and amount determined by the Registrar for repayment of judgment amount, interest, or costs if appeal successful.