Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1377

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1377

It is not appropriate to grant a stay against orders that simply direct parties to file and serve submissions on costs, as this would unnecessarily interfere with the trial process; none of the applicant’s submissions provide a sufficient basis for the grant of a stay.

Parties
Appellant: Stanislawa Bahonko; First Respondent: Kosta Sterjov; Second Respondent: Snezana Sterjova; Third Respondent: Lisa McEwan; Fourth Respondent: LA Kosta Child Care & Kindergarten Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Ruling on Further Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Stay
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Stay of Orders Pending Appeal, Costs, Appeal Procedure
Practice and Procedure Stay of Orders Pending Appeal Costs Appeal Procedure

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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanislawa Bahonko

Appellant

Kosta Sterjov

First Respondent

Snezana Sterjova

Second Respondent

Lisa McEwan

Third Respondent

LA Kosta Child Care & Kindergarten Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Ruling on Further Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of orders should be granted pending appeal under O 52 r 17(1) of the Federal Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the orders made by Jessup J should be stayed, particularly the direction to file submissions as to costs

Ratio Decidendi

It is not appropriate to grant a stay against orders that simply direct parties to file and serve submissions on costs, as this would unnecessarily interfere with the trial process; none of the applicant’s submissions provide a sufficient basis for the grant of a stay.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the further amended notice of motion filed on 23 August 2007 are dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the further amended notice of motion filed on 23 August 2007, including the costs of the hearing on 27 August 2007.