SCHMIDT V EBADA PROPERTY INVESTMENTS & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-004752

SCHMIDT V EBADA PROPERTY INVESTMENTS & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-004752

The application for a stay was dismissed because there was no appeal currently on foot to define the parameters of any stay, summary judgment had disposed of the substantive claim so there was nothing appropriate to stay, the applicants had failed to advance the appeal and it was effectively abandoned subject to discretionary extension, and a stay would amount to granting the interim relief already refused on the merits.

Citation
openlaw-00adadc6_72de_4aaa_870c_3611a3f9d29f.pdf
Parties
First Applicant: Taylor Jade Schmidt; Second Applicant: Anthony Mikhal Schmidt; First Respondent: Ebada Property Investments Limited; Second Respondent: Brian Patrick Garrity; Third Respondent: Noel Robert Hair
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment; Interim Injunction; Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal / Post Summary Judgment Stay Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings and stay of execution dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Interim Injunction, Stay of Proceedings, Abandonment of Appeal, Extension of Time
Property Equity Civil Procedure Appeal Procedure Summary Judgment Interim Injunction Stay of Proceedings Abandonment of Appeal +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taylor Jade Schmidt

First Applicant

Anthony Mikhal Schmidt

Second Applicant

Ebada Property Investments Limited

First Respondent

Brian Patrick Garrity

Second Respondent

Noel Robert Hair

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment; Interim Injunction; Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal / Post Summary Judgment Stay Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any state of affairs to be stayed after summary judgment was entered
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had abandoned their appeal by failing to advance it
  3. 3 Whether amended pleadings could be permitted after summary judgment disposed of the substantive claim

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was dismissed because there was no appeal currently on foot to define the parameters of any stay, summary judgment had disposed of the substantive claim so there was nothing appropriate to stay, the applicants had failed to advance the appeal and it was effectively abandoned subject to discretionary extension, and a stay would amount to granting the interim relief already refused on the merits.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings and stay of execution dismissed

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings and stay of execution dismissed