PYRAMIDS RENDER STARS PTY LIMITED v AKKARI GROUP PTY LIMITED [2022] NSWDC 134

PYRAMIDS RENDER STARS PTY LIMITED v AKKARI GROUP PTY LIMITED [2022] NSWDC 134

The defendants did not establish a proper basis for a stay. Although the appeal was treated as potentially arguable and not hopeless, the evidence was entirely deficient on the balance of convenience: there was no evidence about the financial position of the plaintiff or defendants, no evidence about the plaintiff's capacity to repay or hardship or business dislocation to the defendants, and no offer to pay the judgment sum into court or provide security. The application had not been made to the trial judge and was brought more than three months after judgment. The adjournment was refused because the defendants had delayed, had confirmed the evidence they relied on, and it was not in the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Notice of Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal / Consequential Orders
Outcome
The defendants' application for an adjournment was dismissed; the defendants' Notice of Motion for a stay was dismissed; indemnity costs were refused; the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'adjournment Application' 'balance of Convenience' 'costs' 'security for Judgment Sum']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'adjournment Application' 'balance of Convenience' 'costs' 'security for Judgment Sum']

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

Civil Notice of Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal / Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be granted an adjournment of their Notice of Motion for a stay.' 'Whether execution of the judgment handed down on 14 December 2021 should be stayed pending appeal.' "Whether the defendants had demonstrated a proper basis for a stay, including evidence on balance of convenience and the parties' financial positions." 'Whether costs should be ordered on the usual basis or indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not establish a proper basis for a stay. Although the appeal was treated as potentially arguable and not hopeless, the evidence was entirely deficient on the balance of convenience: there was no evidence about the financial position of the plaintiff or defendants, no evidence about the plaintiff's capacity to repay or hardship or business dislocation to the defendants, and no offer to pay the judgment sum into court or provide security. The application had not been made to the trial judge and was brought more than three months after judgment. The adjournment was refused because the defendants had delayed, had confirmed the evidence they relied on, and it was not in the...

Court Disposition

The defendants' application for an adjournment was dismissed; the defendants' Notice of Motion for a stay was dismissed; indemnity costs were refused; the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ["The defendants' application for an adjournment of the Notice of Motion is dismissed." 'The Notice of Motion is dismissed.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or assessed."]