Wu v Ling (No 4) [2017] NSWCA 59

Wu v Ling (No 4) [2017] NSWCA 59

The stay ordered on 23 December 2016 was vacated because the appellant failed to expeditiously file a special leave application to the High Court, and no sufficient reason was shown for continued suspension of enforcement; no prejudice was identified in lifting the stay, and the respondent is entitled to enforce the judgment.

Parties
Appellant: Yan Wu; Respondent and Cross Appellant: Albert Ling
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (application) in Appeal / Post Judgment Enforcement; Application to Discharge Stay
Outcome
Application for discharge of stay granted; appellant to pay costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
Stay of Enforcement, Judgments and Orders, Appeals, Special Leave Application, Enforcement of Judgment
Civil Procedure Stay of Enforcement Judgments and Orders Appeals Special Leave Application Enforcement of Judgment

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yan Wu

Appellant

Albert Ling

Respondent and Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (application) in Appeal / Post Judgment Enforcement; Application to Discharge Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of enforcement of part of the judgment should be lifted due to the appellant's failure to expeditiously file a special leave application to the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The stay ordered on 23 December 2016 was vacated because the appellant failed to expeditiously file a special leave application to the High Court, and no sufficient reason was shown for continued suspension of enforcement; no prejudice was identified in lifting the stay, and the respondent is entitled to enforce the judgment.

Court Disposition

Application for discharge of stay granted; appellant to pay costs of the motion.

Orders

  • Grant the application of the respondent for the stay ordered 23 December 2016 to be discharged.
  • The appellant is to pay the costs of the motion filed 3 March 2017.