SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Alananzeh v Zgool Form Pty Ltd (No 2) |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 258 |
Hearing Date: | 2 August, 12 August 2024 |
Decision Date: | 19 August 2024 |
Before: | McWilliam J |
Decision: | (1) The judgment given on 26 June 2024 is stayed pending determination of the plaintiff’s appeal and the second defendant’s cross-appeal, on the condition that the second defendant pay to the plaintiff, within 28 days from the date this order comes into effect, the sum of $45,000. (2) Costs of the application are costs in the cause. |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay of order pending appeal and cross-appeal – Judgment in favour of plaintiff in personal injury proceeding – whether impecunious plaintiff – whether serious issues for determination raised on cross-appeal – whether real risk that second defendant may suffer prejudice or damage if the stay is not granted – whether balance of convenience favours maintenance of status quo pending appeal proceeding – where competing rights of the parties requires balance of hardship produced by stay on plaintiff – conditional stay granted |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 47 Court Procedures Rules (2006) (ACT) r 5301 |
Cases Cited: | Alananzeh v Zgool Form Pty Ltd [2024] ACTSC 16 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Dreamtime Supply Company Pty Ltd v Steadfast ICT Security [2021] ACTCA 38 Hendricks v El Dik (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 302 Michael Hill Jeweller (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gispac Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 128 |
Parties: | Ahmad Alananzeh ( Plaintiff) Zgool Form Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Xmplar Formwork Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Workers Compensation Default Insurance Fund Manager (Third Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel D Shillington ( Plaintiff) N Sinnathurai (Second Defendant) |
| Solicitors Law Partners Personal Injury Lawyers ( Plaintiff) No appearance (First Defendant) Wotton & Kearney (Second Defendant) Moray & Agnew (Third Defendant) | |
File Number: | SC 90 of 2022 |
McWILLIAM J:
1․On 26 June 2024, I delivered judgment in this proceeding in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $243,900 and ordered the first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs, with the third defendant to pay its own costs: see Alananzeh v Zgool Form Pty Ltd [2024] ACTSC 16 (primary judgment).
2․The first defendant was the plaintiff’s employer and did not participate in the hearing. The second defendant was a sub-contractor at the relevant construction site where the injury occurred. The third defendant was the default insurer who was liable to pay any judgment against the first defendant (who did not hold an insurance policy that responded in the Territory) save as to where another defendant was also found liable, which is what occurred when the Court entered judgment against both the first and second defendants.
3․The plaintiff has appealed the judgment. The second defendant has cross-appealed and by application in proceeding filed 23 July 2024, sought a stay of the judgment. The appeal proceeding is not…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Alananzeh v Zgool Form Pty Ltd (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 258
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was impecunious, whether the cross-appeal raised serious issues for determination, and whether there was a real risk of prejudice to the defendant if the stay was not granted. Additionally, the court considered the balance of convenience and whether it favoured maintaining the status quo pending the appeal. The court also weighed the competing rights of the parties and the hardship produced by a stay on the plaintiff.
After considering the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that the plaintiff was impecunious, the cross-appeal raised serious issues, and there was a real risk of prejudice to the defendant if the stay was not granted. The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending the appeal. Consequently, the court granted a conditional stay of the judgment, with the condition that the defendant pay a specified sum to the plaintiff within a set period. The court also ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the cause.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The judgment given on 26 June 2024 is stayed pending determination of the plaintiff’s appeal and the second defendant’s cross-appeal, on the condition that the second defendant pay to the plaintiff, within 28 days from the date this order comes into effect, the sum of $45,000.
(2) Costs of the application are costs in the cause.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.