Capon v Snyman

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Capon v Snyman
Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCA 274
Hearing Date(s): 7 August 2014
Decision Date: 07 August 2014
Before: Ward JA
Decision:

Application for stay of execution of writ of possession dismissed. Costs reserved.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - stays - where applicant seeking stay prior to hearing of appeal - whether balance of convenience favoured stay - whether there was a serious question to be tried
Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Boutros v Nationwide Capital Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 246
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Nadia Marie Capon (Applicant)
Carl Snyman (First Respondent)
Stuart Orr (Second Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
Ms G Mahoney (Respondents)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Nadia Capon (Appearing in person)
McLachlan Thorpe Partners (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2014/00199664
Decision Under Appeal
- Before: Bellew J
- Date of Decision:  20 June 2014
- Court File Number(s): 2014/00156089
Publication Restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

  1. WARD JA: This is an urgent application by Ms Capon that has been referred to me by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. Ms Capon is seeking a stay of execution of a writ of possession in relation to residential premises she is currently occupying. Part of the background of the matter is set out in an earlier ex tempore judgment of McCallum J on 23 May 2014. The application made by Ms Capon was oral.

  2. The chronology, as I understand it, briefly is this. Ms Capon entered into a 6 month Residential Tenancy Agreement with Dr Snyman in respect of the premises in question. Dr Snyman was himself a tenant under a tenancy agreement with the owner of the property, Ms Hartley. A notice of termination was served on Ms Capon in January this year requiring vacant possession on 14 February 2014. It was asserted that Ms Capon was in arrears of rent. That notice of termination, Ms Capon has informed me, was set aside on an application by Dr Snyman on 3 April 2014. A further notice of termination was served on 3 April 2014, again on the basis of rental arrears, requiring vacant possession on 19 April 2014.

  3. Proceedings were then brought by Dr Snyman in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales which I will refer to as NCAT. That application led to orders on 7 May 2014 terminating Ms Capon's Residential Tenancy Agreement for failure to pay rent in accordance with the agreement and for possession of the property to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Capon v Snyman 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] NSWCA 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Capon v Snyman*, the applicant sought a stay of execution of a writ of possession prior to the hearing of an appeal. The respondent sought to enforce the writ.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay of execution. This required the Court to consider whether there was a serious question to be tried on the appeal.

The Court considered the principles governing applications for a stay of execution, particularly in the context of a writ of possession. It assessed whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal to warrant interfering with the respondent's right to enforce the judgment. The Court found that the applicant had not satisfied the necessary threshold for a stay.

Consequently, the application for a stay of execution of the writ of possession was dismissed. Costs were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for stay of execution of writ of possession dismissed. Costs reserved.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.