Steve Marinos v Jane Mimigeannis [2016] NSWCA 241

Steve Marinos v Jane Mimigeannis [2016] NSWCA 241

The motion for a stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate an appropriate basis for a stay, particularly given the apparent weakness of the appellant's case and insufficient evidence regarding financial hardship and the value of security offered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Stay of Orders Pending Appeal
Outcome
Appellant's notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['application to Stay Orders' 'limitation Period in Assault' 'assessment of Damages']
['practice and Procedure' 'limitation of Actions' 'personal Injury'] ['application to Stay Orders' 'limitation Period in Assault' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Appeal / Application for Stay of Orders Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a basis to stay execution of District Court orders pending appeal' 'Whether the cause of action was discoverable for limitation purposes under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)' 'Whether the assessment of damages, particularly general damages and future dental expenses, was excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for a stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate an appropriate basis for a stay, particularly given the apparent weakness of the appellant's case and insufficient evidence regarding financial hardship and the value of security offered.

Court Disposition

Appellant's notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the appellant's notice of motion filed on 14 July 2016." "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]