MORISON v PECK AEROFAKO BV v PECK [1991] NSWCA 205

MORISON v PECK AEROFAKO BV v PECK [1991] NSWCA 205

Where a judgment is subject to a bona fide appeal as to both liability and quantum, and it is possible that the plaintiff may recover nothing if the appeal succeeds, it is appropriate to grant a stay of execution without requiring part-payment as a condition of the stay.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Peck; First Defendants: Mr and Mrs Morison; Second Defendant: Aerofako BV
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Stay of judgment granted pending determination of appeals
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Appeal Procedure, Product Liability
Tort Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Appeal Procedure Product Liability

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Peck

Plaintiff

Mr and Mrs Morison

First Defendants

Aerofako BV

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution of the judgment should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether conditions (such as part-payment) should be imposed on a stay where appeal relates to liability and quantum

Ratio Decidendi

Where a judgment is subject to a bona fide appeal as to both liability and quantum, and it is possible that the plaintiff may recover nothing if the appeal succeeds, it is appropriate to grant a stay of execution without requiring part-payment as a condition of the stay.

Court Disposition

Stay of judgment granted pending determination of appeals

Orders

  • The judgment of 5 November 1990 is stayed pending the determination of the appeals or further order
  • Costs of the applications to be costs in the appeals