R v P (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 360
The application for a stay of the final orders of Barrett J was refused because granting a stay would revive interlocutory orders, rendering the stay futile, and because the Court could ensure the claimant’s interests were protected in the pending District Court settlement approval.
- Parties
- Respondent: R; Claimant: P
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 November 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay refused; specific prayers dismissed; costs to claimant
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Orders, Approval of Settlement, Protected Estates Act, Application in Protective Jurisdiction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
R
Respondent
P
Claimant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant a stay of the final orders of Barrett J pending application for leave to appeal
- 2 Effect of staying final orders on interlocutory orders
- 3 Procedural rights in approval of settlement for persons of unsound mind
Ratio Decidendi
The application for a stay of the final orders of Barrett J was refused because granting a stay would revive interlocutory orders, rendering the stay futile, and because the Court could ensure the claimant’s interests were protected in the pending District Court settlement approval.
Court Disposition
Application for stay refused; specific prayers dismissed; costs to claimant
Orders
- The application for a stay of the orders of Barrett J is refused.
- Prayers 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion of 18 November 2003 are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment