Lipman and another v A G Lifestyle [2003] NSWIRComm 188
The stay of the costs order was refused because the appellants did not produce any proper evidence substantiating their claims that enforcement of the costs order would inhibit or prevent them from pursuing the appeal or that costs would be unrecoverable if successful; therefore, the applicants failed to discharge the onus for a stay under the relevant principles.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 August 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory (stay of Costs Order Pending Appeal)
- Outcome
- application for stay of costs order refused
- Legal Topics
- ['stay of Costs Order' 'appeal Procedure' 'security for Costs']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory (stay of Costs Order Pending Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a stay of a costs order should be granted to the appellants pending the hearing of their appeal against a decision under the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'What is the proper test and onus for granting a stay of execution of costs orders pending appeal']
Ratio Decidendi
The stay of the costs order was refused because the appellants did not produce any proper evidence substantiating their claims that enforcement of the costs order would inhibit or prevent them from pursuing the appeal or that costs would be unrecoverable if successful; therefore, the applicants failed to discharge the onus for a stay under the relevant principles.
Court Disposition
application for stay of costs order refused
Orders
- ['Stay order as to costs is refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment