SOGAL v BATES SOGAL v ROSENBERG [1988] NSWCA 138

SOGAL v BATES SOGAL v ROSENBERG [1988] NSWCA 138

Given the history of delay and resulting prejudice to the respondent, an order expediting the hearing is appropriate. The stay as to $20,500 should only continue on the basis that each appellant pays $7,000 to the respondent within fourteen days.

Parties
Appellant: Sogal; Respondent: Bates; Respondent: Rosenberg
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Expedition of Hearing, Stay of Execution, Costs
Civil Procedure Expedition of Hearing Stay of Execution Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sogal

Appellant

Bates

Respondent

Rosenberg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order should be made to expedite the hearing of the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the stay order on part of the judgment sum should be varied

Ratio Decidendi

Given the history of delay and resulting prejudice to the respondent, an order expediting the hearing is appropriate. The stay as to $20,500 should only continue on the basis that each appellant pays $7,000 to the respondent within fourteen days.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Hearing of the appeal is to be expedited with aim for September or October hearing.
  • Stay as to $20,500 to continue only if each appellant pays $7,000 to the respondent within fourteen days.