Davey v Herbst and Bray

Case [2011] ACTCA 27


JOHN PATRICK DAVEY v VALERIE HERBST AND ADAM RICHARD HERBST AND ERIC MALCOLM BRAY [2011] ACTCA 27 (23 December 2011)

APPEAL – appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court – application to stay enforcement of judgments and costs orders – application refused

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 60
Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT), ss 210, 211
Conveyancing Act1919 (ACT)
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 26
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 1958 (ACT)
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 126

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1146

Alexander & Ors v Cambridge Credit Corporation Limited (Receivers Appointed) & Anor (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Benjamin v GB Franchising Australia Pty Ltd [2008] ACTCA 11
Griffiths v Australian Postal Commission (1987) 87 FLR 139
In re McKerrell; McKerrell v Gowans [1912] 2Ch 648
In re Wool Trading Co Ltd (In Liquidation) (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 106

Registrar General (NSW) v Wood (1926) 39 CLR 46

Hutley, F.C., The Conveyancer (1939) 13 ALJ 229

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 44 – 2011
No. SCA 34 of 2010

Judges:        Burns J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           23 December 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 44 – 2011  
  )          No. SCA 34 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: JOHN PATRICK DAVEY

Appellant

AND: VALERIE HERBST

First Respondent

ADAM RICHARD HERBST

Second Respondent

ERIC MALCOLM BRAY

Third Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Burns J
Date:  23 December 2011 
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application for stay of the enforcement of judgments and costs orders in and relating to ACT Magistrates Court proceedings CS 81763 of 2008 and in ACT Supreme Court matter SCA 34 of 2010 is refused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 44 of 2011
  )          No. SCA 34 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: JOHN PATRICK DAVEY

Appellant

AND: VALERIE HERBST

First Respondent

ADAM RICHARD HERBST

Second Respondent

ERIC MALCOLM BRAY

Third Respondent

Judges:  Burns J
Date:  23 December 2011 
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. The appellant, John Patrick Davey, is appealing to this Court from a decision of Gray J delivered 19 May 2010 in proceedings SCA 34 of 2010 dismissing an appeal by the appellant from certain orders made in the Magistrates Court in April and May 2010, including an order pursuant to r 1146 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) confirming orders of the Registrar of that Court that summary judgment be entered for the first respondent in the amount of $39,247.44 plus interest, dismissing a counterclaim against the first and second respondent’s, entering judgment in…

Continue reading Davey v Herbst and Bray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Davey v Herbst and Bray [2011] ACTCA 27
Case
[2011] ACTCA 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Davey and Bray, sought a stay of enforcement of judgments and costs orders made in ACT Magistrates Court proceedings and ACT Supreme Court proceedings. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants had established sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of enforcement of the existing judgments and costs orders. This involved considering the principles governing the grant of such stays, particularly in circumstances where an appeal is pending or contemplated.

The Court's reasoning focused on the established legal principles for granting a stay of execution, which typically require demonstrating a strong likelihood of success on appeal and that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were not granted. The Court found that the applicants had not satisfied these stringent requirements. Consequently, the application for a stay of enforcement was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application for stay of the enforcement of judgments and costs orders in and relating to ACT Magistrates Court proceedings CS 81763 of 2008 and in ACT Supreme Court matter SCA 34 of 2010 is refused.

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.