Gould v Day [2000] FCA 1560

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed to the extent that conditions requiring security for costs as a precondition for a stay were set aside. No unconditional stay should be granted, but the appellant should be free to proceed with the appeal without providing security for costs.

Parties: Appellant: Stephen Gould; Respondent: Julian Day; Respondent: Alan Manly
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 27 October 2000
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Hearing
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; security for costs condition set aside; otherwise appeal dismissed; costs of the leave application to be costs in the appeal.

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 Party arguments 2

Parties

Stephen Gould

Appellant

Julian Day

Respondent

Alan Manly

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether a stay of proceedings under a sequestration order should be granted unconditionally or subject to security for costs
2 Whether the terms imposed by Emmett J (regarding security for costs as a precondition to a stay) were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; security for costs condition set aside; otherwise appeal dismissed; costs of the leave application to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

Leave be granted to appeal from the judgment of Emmett J given on 5 October 2000.
Orders 2 and 4 made by Emmett J on 5 October 2000, as varied by Branson J on 19 October 2000, be set aside.