Edmunds & Ors v Pickering & Ors (No 6) No. Scgrg-88-2452

EDMUNDS & ORS V PICKERING & ORS (NO. 6)

[2000] SASC 392

Civil (Ex Tempore)

1................ LANDER J....... This is an application for leave to appeal from my decision today refusing an application for a stay of my orders made on 10 August 2000.

The defendants submit that I should give leave, because the application for a stay raises matters of general principle and of importance to the parties. They submit that in the event that a stay is not ordered, the defendants may be kept out, for all time, of the proceeds of the exploitation of the authority in the event that the defendants are successful on appeal.
As I have said in my reasons for refusing the stay, the defendants offer to receive $514,544 from the plaintiffs and in exchange transfer the authority to a third party, unidentified, to be held in escrow on unidentified terms. As I pointed out to Mr Robertson, on this application for leave to appeal, it is possible that the defendants would not repay the sum of $514,544 and on the proposal put by the defendants that the sum would always be lost to the plaintiffs.
It seems to me that the defendants wish to be protected against any potential loss that they may suffer, but they wish to seek that protection at the expense of the plaintiffs. In my opinion, the proposals put forward by the defendants do not give rise to matters upon which leave to appeal should be granted. The application is refused.

In the matter of Edmunds and Others versus Pickering and Others, the applicants sought leave to appeal against the decision that denied their application for a stay of the orders made by the court on 10 August 2000. The applicants argued that the stay was necessary due to the potential loss they might incur if the orders were not stayed, and that it raised important legal principles relevant to the case. The applicants proposed that if the stay was not granted, they would transfer the authority to a third party, to be held in escrow, in exchange for receiving a specified sum of money from the respondents. However, the court was not convinced by the applicants' proposal, as it was uncertain whether the applicants would repay the sum if the appeal was unsuccessful, and there was no guarantee that the third party would hold the authority under identifiable terms.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' proposal raised matters of general principle and importance that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The court had to consider the potential loss the applicants might suffer if the orders were not stayed, and whether the applicants' proposal was fair and reasonable to both parties. The court had to determine whether the applicants' proposal provided adequate protection against potential loss, and whether it was at the expense of the respondents. The court also had to consider whether the applicants' proposal raised any legal principles that were important enough to warrant the grant of leave to appeal.

The court found that the applicants' proposal did not raise any matters of general principle or importance that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The court was not satisfied that the proposal provided adequate protection against potential loss, and it was at the expense of the respondents. The court was also not convinced that the proposal raised any legal principles that were important enough to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. The court found that the applicants' proposal was not fair and reasonable to both parties, and it was uncertain whether the applicants would repay the sum if the appeal was unsuccessful. Therefore, the court refused the application for leave to appeal.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal, and the applicants were not granted permission to appeal the decision that denied their application for a stay of the orders made by the court on 10 August 2000. The court found that the applicants' proposal did not raise any matters of general principle or importance that warranted the grant of leave to appeal, and it was not fair and reasonable to both parties. The court was also not convinced that the proposal raised any legal principles that were important enough to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. Therefore, the applicants' application for leave to appeal was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established