Monisse v Kontelj [2022] NSWCATAP 373

Monisse v Kontelj [2022] NSWCATAP 373

The appellant provided no probative evidence in support of his stay application, and his allegations of false or misleading information and denial of an opportunity to respond were vague and unsupported. Balancing the respondents' prima facie right to the benefit of the first instance decision against the appellant's unsupported assertions, the interests of justice did not warrant an ex parte stay. Directions were appropriate to allow material to be filed promptly. The adjournment and extension of time were refused because the appellant did not adequately identify the evidence sought, its relevance, attempts made to obtain it, when it would be available, or why it was not produced at...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal With Application for a Stay / Procedural Rulings on Directions, Ex Parte Stay, Adjournment and Extension of Time
Outcome
Directions were made for the stay application; no ex parte stay was granted; the application to adjourn the 30 November 2022 listing and for an extension of time was refused.
Legal Topics
['application for a Stay' 'ex Parte Stay' 'internal Appeal' 'adjournment' 'extension of Time' 'compensation for Breach of Landlord Repair Obligations']
['civil Procedure' 'residential Tenancies'] ['application for a Stay' 'ex Parte Stay' 'internal Appeal' 'adjournment' 'extension of Time' 'compensation for Breach of Landlord Repair Obligations']

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

Internal Appeal With Application for a Stay / Procedural Rulings on Directions, Ex Parte Stay, Adjournment and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether directions should be made for evidence and submissions on the Application for a Stay.' 'Whether the Tribunal should grant an ex parte stay pending the hearing of the Application for a Stay.' 'Whether the hearing listed on 30 November 2022 should be adjourned and the appellant given an extension of time to lodge further material.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant provided no probative evidence in support of his stay application, and his allegations of false or misleading information and denial of an opportunity to respond were vague and unsupported. Balancing the respondents' prima facie right to the benefit of the first instance decision against the appellant's unsupported assertions, the interests of justice did not warrant an ex parte stay. Directions were appropriate to allow material to be filed promptly. The adjournment and extension of time were refused because the appellant did not adequately identify the evidence sought, its relevance, attempts made to obtain it, when it would be available, or why it was not produced at...

Court Disposition

Directions were made for the stay application; no ex parte stay was granted; the application to adjourn the 30 November 2022 listing and for an extension of time was refused.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal is listed for a Call Over and Hearing of the Application for a Stay on 30 November 2022 at 11:30 AM.' 'On or before 22 November 2022 Paul Monisse (APPELLANT) is to lodge with the Appeal Registry and give to the other parties any further evidence and submissions in support of the Application for a Stay...