Buckworth v Gladio Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 104

Buckworth v Gladio Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 104

The applicant's prospects of success in her special leave application are not substantial; the issue is fact-specific, not raising any question of principle or general application. There is no error identified in the majority's reasoning, and neither formulated question arises from the facts. Accordingly, the application for a stay is refused.

Parties
Applicant: Virginia Louise Buckworth; First Respondent: Gladio Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Ashdown Home Units Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution / Post Appeal, Application for Stay Pending High Court Special Leave
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Special Leave Applications, Evidence Inference
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Special Leave Applications Evidence Inference

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Virginia Louise Buckworth

Applicant

Gladio Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Ashdown Home Units Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Execution / Post Appeal, Application for Stay Pending High Court Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of the primary judgment should be granted pending determination of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court
  2. 2 Whether there is substantial prospect of success in the special leave application, based on issues of fact and questions in the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's prospects of success in her special leave application are not substantial; the issue is fact-specific, not raising any question of principle or general application. There is no error identified in the majority's reasoning, and neither formulated question arises from the facts. Accordingly, the application for a stay is refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant/applicant's notice of motion filed 6 May 2016 dismissed.
  • Applicant pay first respondent's costs of the motion.