YUILL v SPEDLEY SECURITIES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [1992] NSWCA 285

YUILL v SPEDLEY SECURITIES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [1992] NSWCA 285

The trial judge correctly exercised his discretion by applying the McMahon v Gould guidelines as agreed to by the parties; no error of principle was demonstrated sufficient to justify leave to appeal; the guidelines in McMahon v Gould represent the current law in New South Wales for determining applications to stay civil proceedings where related criminal charges are outstanding.

Parties
Claimant: Yuill; Opponent: Spedley Securities Ltd (In Liquidation); Other: Maher; Intervener: Standard Chartered Bank
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 1992
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From First Instance Refusal of Stay
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Civil Proceedings, Overlap of Civil and Criminal Proceedings, Discretionary Stay Guidelines
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Stay of Civil Proceedings Overlap of Civil and Criminal Proceedings Discretionary Stay Guidelines

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuill

Claimant

Spedley Securities Ltd (In Liquidation)

Opponent

Maher

Other

Standard Chartered Bank

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From First Instance Refusal of Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to appeal from refusal of a stay of civil proceedings pending outcome of related criminal proceedings
  2. 2 Proper approach/guidelines for deciding stay applications where outstanding criminal charges exist

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly exercised his discretion by applying the McMahon v Gould guidelines as agreed to by the parties; no error of principle was demonstrated sufficient to justify leave to appeal; the guidelines in McMahon v Gould represent the current law in New South Wales for determining applications to stay civil proceedings where related criminal charges are outstanding.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
  • The claimant to pay the costs of the contesting opponent