Land Enviro Corp Pty Ltd v Hickie [2014] NSWCA 363

Land Enviro Corp Pty Ltd v Hickie [2014] NSWCA 363

The relief sought was futile, as the relevant special leave application to the High Court had already been dismissed, rendering the stay applications and leave to appeal moot. No legal basis existed to further delay or stay enforcement of costs orders that were both final and confirmed by appellate courts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders; Motion for Stay Pending Determination of Special Leave Application
Outcome
Applications dismissed; costs to respondents.
Legal Topics
['appeal' 'interlocutory Applications' 'stay of Orders' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['appeal' 'interlocutory Applications' 'stay of Orders' 'costs']

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

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders; Motion for Stay Pending Determination of Special Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal from interlocutory orders should be granted' 'Whether a stay pending disposition of a High Court special leave application is warranted' 'Whether the motion for relief and appeals are now moot']

Ratio Decidendi

The relief sought was futile, as the relevant special leave application to the High Court had already been dismissed, rendering the stay applications and leave to appeal moot. No legal basis existed to further delay or stay enforcement of costs orders that were both final and confirmed by appellate courts.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; costs to respondents.

Orders

  • ['The summons seeking leave to appeal, filed 28 July 2014, and the notice of motion filed 17 July 2014, be dismissed.' 'The notice of appeal filed 17 July 2014, be dismissed as incompetent.' "The applicants to pay the respondents' costs."]