HASTIE v NIXON [1990] NSWCA 90

HASTIE v NIXON [1990] NSWCA 90

Insufficient evidence before the Court to justify a stay of the execution of the District Court judgment; an adjournment is granted to allow the applicant opportunity to provide further evidence supporting their claim.

Parties
Applicant: Raymond Michael Hastie; Respondent: Nixon; Defendant: Gloria Constance Benecke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1990
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Judgment / Motion for Adjournment and Stay
Outcome
Application for adjournment granted; application for stay refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Stay of Proceedings, Adjournment, Bankruptcy Implications
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Stay of Proceedings Adjournment Bankruptcy Implications

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

Parties

Raymond Michael Hastie

Applicant

Nixon

Respondent

Gloria Constance Benecke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Judgment / Motion for Adjournment and Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant a stay of District Court judgment
  2. 2 Whether an adjournment should be granted to allow additional evidence
  3. 3 Implications of bankruptcy proceedings following judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Insufficient evidence before the Court to justify a stay of the execution of the District Court judgment; an adjournment is granted to allow the applicant opportunity to provide further evidence supporting their claim.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment granted; application for stay refused.

Orders

  • Stand over the notice of motion to the first motion day of 1991.
  • Liberty to either party to apply to restore the application to the list on one day's notice.