Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd (No 2)
Case
•
[2017] NSWCA 152
•22 June 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 152
[2017] NSWCA 152
22 June 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Fitzgerald, sought a stay of proceedings from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales pending an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a previous decision of the Court of Appeal. The respondent was Deloitte Services Pty Ltd.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had satisfied the test for granting a stay of proceedings pending an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, as established in *Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation*. This test requires the applicant to demonstrate that their case has real prospects of success on appeal and that there are substantial reasons for granting a stay.
In refusing the application, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that their case had real prospects of success before the High Court. The Court noted that the applicant’s arguments did not raise a question of law that the High Court would likely consider to be of general public importance or otherwise warranting its intervention. Consequently, the threshold for granting a stay was not met.
The Court ordered that the application for a stay be refused and that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had satisfied the test for granting a stay of proceedings pending an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, as established in *Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation*. This test requires the applicant to demonstrate that their case has real prospects of success on appeal and that there are substantial reasons for granting a stay.
In refusing the application, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that their case had real prospects of success before the High Court. The Court noted that the applicant’s arguments did not raise a question of law that the High Court would likely consider to be of general public importance or otherwise warranting its intervention. Consequently, the threshold for granting a stay was not met.
The Court ordered that the application for a stay be refused and that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
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
1
Bar-Mordecai v Rotman
[2000] NSWCA 123
Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd
[2017] NSWCA 139
Rinehart v Welker
[2012] NSWCA 1