HASTIE v NIXON [1990] NSWCA 89

HASTIE v NIXON [1990] NSWCA 89

On the evidence currently before the court, there is insufficient basis to grant a stay of execution or to set aside the District Court judgment; however, the applicant will be given an adjournment to bring further evidence.

Parties
Applicant: Raymond Michael Hastie; Respondent: William Francis Nixon; Defendant: Gloria Constance Benecke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1990
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Judgment/stay of Execution / Interlocutory Application/adjournment
Outcome
Application for formal stay refused; adjournment granted
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Stay of Execution, Bankruptcy Notice
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Stay of Execution Bankruptcy Notice

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Michael Hastie

Applicant

William Francis Nixon

Respondent

Gloria Constance Benecke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Judgment/stay of Execution / Interlocutory Application/adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of the execution of judgment pending further evidence
  2. 2 Whether the District Court summary judgment should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence currently before the court, there is insufficient basis to grant a stay of execution or to set aside the District Court judgment; however, the applicant will be given an adjournment to bring further evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for formal stay refused; adjournment granted

Orders

  • Notice of motion stood over to first motion day of 1991
  • Liberty to apply to restore the application on one day's notice