SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
S APCI 2012 0084
| BYTAN PTY LTD | Applicant |
| v | |
| BB AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Respondent |
---
JUDGES: | OSBORN JA and CAVANOUGH AJA | ||
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | ||
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 May 2012 | ||
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 10 May 2012 | ||
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2012] VSCA 116 | ||
| JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM | BB Australia Pty Ltd v Bytan Pty Ltd and Ors [2012] VSC 171 (Pagone J) | ||
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay of execution pending appeal – Whether special or exceptional circumstances – Real risk that appeal would be rendered nugatory – Stay granted on conditions.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr D J Christie | Marque Lawyers |
| For the Respondent | Mr R Harris | A’Beckett Lawyers |
OSBORN JA:
This appeal arises out of a dispute between a franchisor and franchisee with respect to their rights following the termination of a franchise agreement with respect to a Blockbuster video store located at Turramurra in New South Wales.
The appellant seeks a stay of the trial judge's order that the appellant close the video store commencing from 11 May 2012, being Order C referred to in para 17 of the judgment of Pagone J of 4 May 2012.[1]
[1][2012] VSC 171.
The purpose of the closure, as the judge made clear, is to facilitate the purchase by the first respondent of the assets used in the store pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement.
The principles governing the grant of a stay upon appeal are well understood and were recently restated in David Neate and Tara Farm Pty Ltd v Thoroughbred International Marketing Pty Ltd[2] by Mandie JA and Cavanough AJA. Most relevantly they are:
[2][2012] VSCA 65, [5]-[8].
(a) the power to stay is discretionary, with the onus of demonstrating that a stay is justified resting upon the moving party;
(b) the power to order a stay is to be exercised only where special or exceptional circumstances exist;
(c) such special or exceptional circumstances will exist where there is a real risk that the appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory;
(d) special circumstances will exist where, for whatever reason, there is a real risk that it will not be possible for a successful appellant to be restored substantially to its former position if the judgment against it is executed;
(e) even in such circumstances, however, the grant of a stay remains discretionary.
In Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd v PCH Melbourne Pty Ltd,[3] Maxwell P made this observation:
As to the contention by [the respondent] that the appeal is of little merit, that is, of course, an argument which can be made against a stay, but it is only ever likely to succeed at an interlocutory stage if there is something palpably weak about the grounds or if they are obviously without substance.[4]
[3][2007] VSCA 118.
[4]Ibid, [14].
It is submitted that it is seriously arguable that Pagone J's reasons for the order in issue were flawed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bytan Pty Ltd v BB Australia Pty Ltd 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
- [2012] VSCA 116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In its reasoning, the court considered that BB Australia had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, particularly concerning the interpretation of the contract and the applicable laws. Additionally, the court acknowledged the real risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted, as Bytan could not be compelled to reinstate BB Australia as its agent. The court also took into account the potential prejudice to BB Australia if the stay was not granted, including the risk of financial hardship and the erosion of its contractual rights. After weighing these factors, the court determined that special or exceptional circumstances were present and granted the stay on specified conditions.
Consequently, the court ordered that BB Australia provide a financial undertaking as a condition of the stay. The undertaking required BB Australia to deposit a sum of money into the court registry, ensuring that Bytan would not be prejudiced if the appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. The court also imposed conditions on the stay, such as the requirement for BB Australia to maintain insurance coverage and to provide regular updates on the progress of the appeal. The final orders reflected the court's decision to balance the interests of both parties, granting the stay while safeguarding Bytan's rights and ensuring that the appeal could proceed effectively.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.