Baker, R. & Ors v Evans, C. & Ors [1987] FCA 284

Baker, R. & Ors v Evans, C. & Ors [1987] FCA 284

A stay was refused for the first applicants because the points advanced did not appear to have any great chance of success, including the unorthodox submission that the Court should disregard the legal distinction between the company and those interested in it. A stay was granted conditionally for the second applicants because the complexity of that branch suggested there may be aspects reasonably able to be agitated before the Full Court. Costs were split so that the first applicants and second applicants each bore one-half of the respondents' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Further Hearing After Judgment on Stay and Costs
Outcome
Stay refused for the first applicants; conditional stay granted for the second applicants; costs divided equally between the two groups of applicants.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution Pending Appeal' 'whether Lack of Stay Would Render Appeal Nugatory' 'arguable Point for Appeal' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'appeals' 'judgments'] ['stay of Execution Pending Appeal' 'whether Lack of Stay Would Render Appeal Nugatory' 'arguable Point for Appeal' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Further Hearing After Judgment on Stay and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a stay of execution pending appeal should be granted to prevent the appeal, if successful, from being nugatory.' 'Whether there was any arguable point for appeal in either branch of the case.' 'Whether liability for costs should be split between the first applicants and the second applicants.']

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was refused for the first applicants because the points advanced did not appear to have any great chance of success, including the unorthodox submission that the Court should disregard the legal distinction between the company and those interested in it. A stay was granted conditionally for the second applicants because the complexity of that branch suggested there may be aspects reasonably able to be agitated before the Full Court. Costs were split so that the first applicants and second applicants each bore one-half of the respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

Stay refused for the first applicants; conditional stay granted for the second applicants; costs divided equally between the two groups of applicants.

Orders

  • ["The first applicants pay one-half of the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be taxed, including reserved costs." 'The second applicants pay one-half of such costs as mentioned in order (1).' "The documents seized and held in the registry, under the warrant in issue in the first applicants'...