Sedhom v Guirguis [2017] NSWCATAP 77

Sedhom v Guirguis [2017] NSWCATAP 77

The stay application was dismissed because the warrant for possession had already been executed before the appeal and stay application were lodged, making a stay of execution unavailable as originally sought; the notations concerning the proposed joint venture did not make the termination and possession orders conditional on performance of that agreement; and the balance of convenience did not favour reinstating possession given the timing of the application, evidence of demolition and possible hazard at the premises, possible landlord liability, and the appellant's short-term alternative accommodation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Panel Application for Stay in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Stay Pending Appeal After Warrant for Possession Executed
Outcome
The application for stay is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['stay Application' 'warrant for Possession' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'balance of Convenience' 'appeal From Refusal to Relist']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay Application' 'warrant for Possession' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'balance of Convenience' 'appeal From Refusal to Relist']

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 Panel Application for Stay in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Stay Pending Appeal After Warrant for Possession Executed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a stay should be granted where the warrant for possession had already been executed before the appeal and stay application were lodged.' 'Whether the appellant should be restored to possession pending determination of the appeal.' 'Whether the notations concerning an oral joint venture agreement made the termination and possession orders conditional on performance of that agreement.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interim relief reinstating possession to the appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was dismissed because the warrant for possession had already been executed before the appeal and stay application were lodged, making a stay of execution unavailable as originally sought; the notations concerning the proposed joint venture did not make the termination and possession orders conditional on performance of that agreement; and the balance of convenience did not favour reinstating possession given the timing of the application, evidence of demolition and possible hazard at the premises, possible landlord liability, and the appellant's short-term alternative accommodation.

Court Disposition

The application for stay is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for stay is dismissed.']