Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd v Slotwinski (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 226

Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd v Slotwinski (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 226

The appellant failed to demonstrate an appropriate basis or meet the onus required for the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to grant a stay. The factors weighed—including the effectiveness of the appeal, the strength of the case, the balance of convenience, and the interests of justice—did not warrant the granting of a stay. A successful party is generally entitled to the benefit of first instance orders, and it would be inequitable to allow selective enforcement.

Parties
Appellant: Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd; Respondent: Piotr Slotwinski; Respondent: Julia Slotwinski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory (stay Application on Appeal)
Outcome
Application for a stay refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Orders, Costs Orders, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Interlocutory Orders Costs Orders Appeal Procedure

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd

Appellant

Piotr Slotwinski

Respondent

Julia Slotwinski

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory (stay Application on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of costs orders should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appellant demonstrated sufficient grounds for the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to grant a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate an appropriate basis or meet the onus required for the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to grant a stay. The factors weighed—including the effectiveness of the appeal, the strength of the case, the balance of convenience, and the interests of justice—did not warrant the granting of a stay. A successful party is generally entitled to the benefit of first instance orders, and it would be inequitable to allow selective enforcement.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay refused

Orders

  • The application for a stay is refused.
  • The interim stay granted on 22 August 2018 and continued on 4 September 2018 until further order is lifted.