Young v King (No 10) [2016] NSWLEC 70

Young v King (No 10) [2016] NSWLEC 70

There were no serious questions or arguable grounds supporting the stay applications; the applicants continued to repeat allegations previously rejected, and no evidence supported any prejudice or risk warranting a stay. The interests of justice, the balance of convenience, and competing rights favoured refusing the stay, especially as respondents had suffered cost and inconvenience defending unmeritorious claims.

Parties
Applicant: Margo Young; First Respondent: Brendan King; Second Respondent: Kristina King; Third Respondent: Jason Hones; Fourth Respondent: Hones Lawyers; Fifth Respondent: Ian Hemmings; Sixth Respondent: Stephen Perrens; Seventh Respondent: Hughes Trueman Pty Limited; Eighth Respondent: Warwick Davies; Ninth Respondent: Stephen Noel Griffiths; Tenth Respondent: Robert Charles Springett; Eleventh Respondent: Michael Brearley; Twelfth Respondent: Ross Fraser; Thirteenth Respondent: Tony Tuxworth; Fourteenth Respondent: Copland Lethbridge; Fifteenth Respondent: Bee & Lethbridge Pty Limited; Sixteenth Respondent: Geoff Goodyer; Seventeenth Respondent: Victor Schubert; Eighteenth Respondent: Warringah Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings / Ruling on Stay Applications Pending Appeal
Outcome
Two stay applications dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Costs, Personal Costs Orders, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Practice and Procedure Stay of Proceedings Costs Personal Costs Orders Appeals Jurisdiction Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margo Young

Applicant

Brendan King

First Respondent

Kristina King

Second Respondent

Jason Hones

Third Respondent

Hones Lawyers

Fourth Respondent

Ian Hemmings

Fifth Respondent

Stephen Perrens

Sixth Respondent

Hughes Trueman Pty Limited

Seventh Respondent

Warwick Davies

Eighth Respondent

Stephen Noel Griffiths

Ninth Respondent

Robert Charles Springett

Tenth Respondent

Michael Brearley

Eleventh Respondent

Ross Fraser

Twelfth Respondent

Tony Tuxworth

Thirteenth Respondent

Copland Lethbridge

Fourteenth Respondent

Bee & Lethbridge Pty Limited

Fifteenth Respondent

Geoff Goodyer

Sixteenth Respondent

Victor Schubert

Seventeenth Respondent

Warringah Shire Council

Eighteenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings / Ruling on Stay Applications Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of costs proceedings should be granted pending determination of appeals in the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether personal costs orders against legal practitioners should be stayed
  3. 3 Principles governing the exercise of discretion to stay proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

There were no serious questions or arguable grounds supporting the stay applications; the applicants continued to repeat allegations previously rejected, and no evidence supported any prejudice or risk warranting a stay. The interests of justice, the balance of convenience, and competing rights favoured refusing the stay, especially as respondents had suffered cost and inconvenience defending unmeritorious claims.

Court Disposition

Two stay applications dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant/plaintiff Young's amended Notice of Motion of 18 May 2016 is dismissed.
  • The Notice of Motion filed on behalf of Muriniti and his law firm on 21 April 2016 is dismissed.