Brighton and Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

Brighton and Ors (appellants) sought a stay of execution of a writ of possession issued by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (respondent). The application for a stay was made in the context of an expedited hearing of an appeal by the appellants against the primary judge's decision.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellants had made out a sufficient case for the vacation of the expedited hearing date. This question arose due to the appellants' defaults in complying with directions for filing submissions and appeal books, which the respondent argued meant the hearing should proceed as scheduled.

Giles JA, in dismissing the application, observed that the directions regarding the hearing date and the filing of documents were not to be treated as optional. The court emphasised that vacating a hearing date could not be assumed to be readily achievable, particularly when the appellants had failed to comply with court orders. The court did not grant the stay, implicitly finding that the appellants had not demonstrated grounds to disrupt the scheduled appeal hearing.