Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick and Son Developments Pty Ltd

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, the applicant, Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd, sought a stay of a money judgment pending the determination of its appeal against Lovick and Son Developments Pty Ltd. Initially, an application for a stay was refused. However, the applicant subsequently applied to re-open that decision, presenting evidence that had not been previously considered by the Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant a stay of the money judgment. This required the Court to consider the principles governing stays of execution pending appeal, particularly in light of new evidence brought forward by the applicant. The Court also had to determine whether the circumstances warranted setting aside its earlier refusal of a stay.

Barrett JA, applying the principles for granting a stay of execution, considered the new evidence presented by the applicant. The Court was satisfied that the additional evidence justified a re-opening of the initial decision. Consequently, the Court set aside its previous orders and granted a stay of the money judgment, conditional upon the giving of a specific undertaking by Raymond John Davis and Sue Davis. The Court also made orders regarding the performance of a sub-paragraph of that undertaking and directed the respondents to pay the appellants' costs of the stay application.