Heckenberg & Ors v Fetterplace [2008] NSWCA 247

Impecuniosity is only evidenced for the corporate appellant, and those behind it can provide security. The personal appellants have assets and no evidence of inability to meet the judgment. No proposal was put forward to preserve the status quo. As such, a stay of the judgment is not warranted.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 29 September 2008
Procedural Posture: Stay Application / Court of Appeal, Ex Tempore Judgment on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome: Order 2 in the Amended Notice of Motion seeking a stay is refused.
Legal Topics: ['stay of Judgment' 'impecuniosity' 'security for Judgment' 'appeal Procedure']

['practice and Procedure'] ['stay of Judgment' 'impecuniosity' 'security for Judgment' 'appeal Procedure']

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

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Court of Appeal, Ex Tempore Judgment on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether a stay of the District Court judgment should be granted pending appeal' "Whether corporate appellant's impecuniosity warrants a stay" 'Whether those behind the corporate appellant can provide security for the judgment']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Order 2 in the Amended Notice of Motion seeking a stay is refused.

Orders

['Order 2 in the Amended Notice of Motion is refused.' "Orders 1 and 3 were made by the Registrar this morning, including that costs of the motion be the respondent's costs in the appeal."]