Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Clarke
Case
•
[2012] NSWCA 428
•03 December 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Clarke [2012] NSWCA 428
[2012] NSWCA 428
03 December 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Clarke*, the applicant, Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd, sought a stay of a District Court judgment pending an appeal. The respondent was Mr. Clarke. The application was heard by Ward JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant a stay of the District Court's judgment. This required the Court to consider the principles governing applications for a stay pending appeal, particularly in circumstances where there was no evidence presented regarding the respondent's financial means.
Ward JA dismissed the notice of motion for a stay. The Court applied the established principles for granting a stay, which generally require a strong or arguable case on appeal and a demonstration that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay were not granted. Crucially, the absence of evidence regarding the respondent's means meant that the Court could not be satisfied that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The Court also noted the time limits for setting aside or varying judgments under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.
The application for a stay was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant a stay of the District Court's judgment. This required the Court to consider the principles governing applications for a stay pending appeal, particularly in circumstances where there was no evidence presented regarding the respondent's financial means.
Ward JA dismissed the notice of motion for a stay. The Court applied the established principles for granting a stay, which generally require a strong or arguable case on appeal and a demonstration that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay were not granted. Crucially, the absence of evidence regarding the respondent's means meant that the Court could not be satisfied that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The Court also noted the time limits for setting aside or varying judgments under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.
The application for a stay was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Stay of Proceedings
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Chen v Lym International
[2009] NSWCA 121
Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd
[2010] NSWCA 41
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd
[2002] NSWCA 383