13 Nov 2006
The stay was refused because the 3rd Defendant, as a separate legal entity, is entitled to its costs and the Plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence of financial inability or a proposal for payment; thus enforcement should not be stayed and the successful litigant must be paid.
21 Jun 2005
The cheque and its acceptance amounted to conditional payment satisfying condition (a); the parties acted on that basis and the guarantee was valid and enforceable; the creditor had no obligation to realise charged properties before enforcing the guarantee; the defendant's late, unpleaded and unsupported defences failed and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the sums claimed.
27 Nov 1972
The magistrate's sentence of a $400 fine was proper and should be upheld because the appellant deliberately breached the law by resuming hawking in a cleared area; procedural lapses concerning photographic exhibits were noted and the court emphasised correct exhibit procedure; the court indicated it would permit payment by instalments ($100 per month with credit for five days served) but the appellant refused the proposal, and consequently the appeal is dismissed.