NRMA INSURANCE LIMITED v TOMPSETT [1998] NSWCA 164

NRMA INSURANCE LIMITED v TOMPSETT [1998] NSWCA 164

A stay of execution is granted because the appellant has an arguable case, there is a risk the appeal will be rendered nugatory without a stay, and the plaintiff's assets indicate a real risk.

Parties
Defendant: NRMA Insurance Limited; Plaintiff: Nicholas Steven Tompsett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Motion for Stay of Execution / Pending Appeal
Outcome
stay of execution granted subject to conditions
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Arson Fraud Defence, Balance of Convenience
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Arson Fraud Defence Balance of Convenience

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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NRMA Insurance Limited

Defendant

Nicholas Steven Tompsett

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Motion for Stay of Execution / Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether execution of judgment should be stayed pending appeal
  2. 2 Balance of convenience and risk to appeal rights if stay not granted

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of execution is granted because the appellant has an arguable case, there is a risk the appeal will be rendered nugatory without a stay, and the plaintiff's assets indicate a real risk.

Court Disposition

stay of execution granted subject to conditions

Orders

  • Upon condition that the defendant pay $30,000 to the plaintiff within fourteen days, execution of District Court judgment is stayed pending appeal.
  • Costs of the application will be costs in the appeal.