BROADSPECTRUM (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED v NATHAN [2017] NZCA 403

The Court dismissed the application because the appellant failed to satisfy the established requirements for a stay pending appeal (arguability, irreparable harm and balance of convenience).

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2017] NZCA 403
Parties: Appellant: Broadspectrum (New Zealand) Limited; Respondent: Jason Aramiha Nathan
Court: Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: New Zealand
Judgment Date: 13 September 2017
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Application for Stay of Proceeding and Execution
Outcome: Application for stay of proceeding and execution dismissed.
Legal Topics: Stay of Proceedings, Stay of Execution, Interim Relief

Civil Procedure Appeal Execution Stay of Proceedings Stay of Execution Interim Relief

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Broadspectrum (New Zealand) Limited

Appellant

Jason Aramiha Nathan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Stay of Proceeding and Execution

Legal Issues

1 Whether a stay of proceedings and execution should be granted pending appeal
2 Whether the appellant satisfied the requirements of arguability, irreparable harm and balance of convenience

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application because the appellant failed to satisfy the established requirements for a stay pending appeal (arguability, irreparable harm and balance of convenience).

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceeding and execution dismissed.

Orders

The application for stay of proceeding and execution is dismissed.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.