Eliezer v The Owners - Strata Plan No 51682 and Ors [2017] NSWSC 581

Eliezer v The Owners - Strata Plan No 51682 and Ors [2017] NSWSC 581

A stay was refused because no appeal was on foot, no grounds of appeal were particularised, and no proper foundation for a stay was established by the applicant.

Parties
Plaintiff: Supriya Eliezer; First Defendant: The Owners – Strata Plan No 51682; Second Defendant: Australian Property Managers Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Peter Woodbury; Fourth Defendant: Frances Li; Fifth Defendant: Wanglang Yang; Sixth Defendant: Meimei Xie; Seventh Defendant: Zhisheng Duan; Eighth Defendant: Wei Li Yu; Ninth Defendant: Xin Wang; Tenth Defendant: Ping Kwan Lo; Eleventh Defendant: Leng Lin Leong
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (stay Application) / Interlocutory Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Orders, Application for Leave to Amend Pleading, Costs Orders
Practice and Procedure Stay of Orders Application for Leave to Amend Pleading Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supriya Eliezer

Plaintiff

The Owners – Strata Plan No 51682

First Defendant

Australian Property Managers Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Peter Woodbury

Third Defendant

Frances Li

Fourth Defendant

Wanglang Yang

Fifth Defendant

Meimei Xie

Sixth Defendant

Zhisheng Duan

Seventh Defendant

Wei Li Yu

Eighth Defendant

Xin Wang

Ninth Defendant

Ping Kwan Lo

Tenth Defendant

Leng Lin Leong

Eleventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (stay Application) / Interlocutory Application Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of the orders of Natalie Adams J made on 22 March 2017 should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the filing of a Notice of Intention to Appeal is sufficient to warrant a stay

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was refused because no appeal was on foot, no grounds of appeal were particularised, and no proper foundation for a stay was established by the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant's Notice of Motion filed 3 May 2017 dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay the Defendants' costs of the Notice of Motion.