Arnott v Glissan [2013] NSWCA 138

Arnott v Glissan [2013] NSWCA 138

The stay was refused because the applicant had not shown an arguable denial of procedural fairness. The matters she sought to agitate before Truss DCJ concerned challenges to the costs assessor's quantification, but no appeal or cross-appeal under s 384 raising such matters was before the District Court; the only...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of District Court Judgment Pending Hearing of S 69 Summons / Notice of Motion; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Notice of motion filed 1 May 2013 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Judgment' 'procedural Fairness' "appeal From Costs Assessor's Determination" 'construction of Costs Agreement']
['civil Procedure' 'costs Assessment' 'judicial Review'] ['stay of Judgment' 'procedural Fairness' "appeal From Costs Assessor's Determination" 'construction of Costs Agreement']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Stay of District Court Judgment Pending Hearing of S 69 Summons / Notice of Motion; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court judgment dated 4 September 2012 should be stayed pending the outcome of the s 69 summons filed in the Supreme Court on 28 February 2013.' "Whether the applicant had an arguable case that Truss DCJ denied her procedural fairness by not permitting matters concerning the costs assessor's quantification to be agitated." 'Whether any stay should be granted on conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the applicant had not shown an arguable denial of procedural fairness. The matters she sought to agitate before Truss DCJ concerned challenges to the costs assessor's quantification, but no appeal or cross-appeal under s 384 raising such matters was before the District Court; the only issue before Truss DCJ was the construction of the costs agreement. Without an arguable case sufficient to warrant a stay, the notice of motion was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion filed 1 May 2013 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 1 May 2013 is dismissed with costs.']