Bayne v Blake [1907] HCA 71

No sufficient grounds were shown to remove the stay of proceedings under the High Court judgment pending appeal to the Privy Council; the analogy of appeals to the High Court should be applied to present circumstances rather than that of appeals to the House of Lords.

Parties: Appellant; Plaintiff: Lila Elizabeth Bayne; Appellant; Plaintiff: Mary Bayne; Respondent; Defendant: Arthur Palmer Blake; Respondent; Defendant: William Riggall
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 15 March 1907
Procedural Posture: Application for Removal of Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal / Post Appellate ; Summons for Removal of Stay Following Grant of Special Leave to Appeal to Privy Council
Outcome: Application for removal of stay refused.
Legal Topics: Stay of Proceedings, Appeals, Practice and Procedure

Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Appeals Practice and 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Lila Elizabeth Bayne

Appellant; Plaintiff

Mary Bayne

Appellant; Plaintiff

Arthur Palmer Blake

Respondent; Defendant

William Riggall

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Removal of Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal / Post Appellate ; Summons for Removal of Stay Following Grant of Special Leave to Appeal to Privy Council

Legal Issues

1 Should the stay of proceedings under the High Court judgment be removed pending the appeal to the Privy Council?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for removal of stay refused.

Orders

Proceedings under the judgment of the High Court stayed until further order upon defendants paying taxed costs of appeal into Court.
Costs of this application to abide the event of appeal to the Privy Council.