SOLIMAN v MAMOUNEY [1992] NSWCA 233

SOLIMAN v MAMOUNEY [1992] NSWCA 233

There were no sound grounds or sufficient evidence to justify granting a stay of orders 3, 4, and 5 or to expedite the hearing of the appeal.

Parties
Claimant: Soliman; Defendant: Mamouney; Defendant: 12th defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Applications 1 and 2 dismissed with costs; application 3 stood over until 19 October 1992.
Legal Topics
Stay of Orders, Expedited Hearing, Regularisation of Parties
Civil Procedure Stay of Orders Expedited Hearing Regularisation of Parties

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

Soliman

Claimant

Mamouney

Defendant

12th defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders 3, 4, and 5 of Hodgson J should be stayed pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the hearing of the appeal should be expedited
  3. 3 Whether orders should be made to regularise the parties to the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

There were no sound grounds or sufficient evidence to justify granting a stay of orders 3, 4, and 5 or to expedite the hearing of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications 1 and 2 dismissed with costs; application 3 stood over until 19 October 1992.

Orders

  • Applications 1 and 2 are dismissed with costs.
  • Application 3 is stood over until 19 October 1992.