Haug v. Jupiters Ltd t/a Conrad Treasury

[2007] QCA 127

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Haug v Jupiters Limited T/A Conrad Treasury Brisbane [2007] QCA 127

PARTIES:

IAN HAUG
(applicant/respondent)
v
JUPITERS LIMITED TRADING AS CONRAD TREASURY BRISBANE
(respondent/applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3006 of 2007
SC No 9408 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Stay of Execution

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

16 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P

ORDER:

1.   The orders made by Lyons J on 26 March 2007 are stayed until the delivery of judgment in the appeal or other order

2.   The parties are to progress the appeal in a timely manner in accordance with the directions of the Deputy Registrar appeals

3.   Liberty to apply on two days notice to the other side

4.   The costs of and incidental to this application are costs of the appeal

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – WHEN GRANTED – where the applicant/appellant was required by an order of the trial division to disclose documents to the respondent – where disclosure of a number of those documents would render an appeal of the matter nugatory – where the Court has discretionary power to order a stay under r 761 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the stay should be granted

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 761

COUNSEL:

D J Kelly, with S M McNeil, for the appellant
R A I Myers for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Tress Cox for the appellant
Shine Lawyers for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: On 26 March this year a Judge of the trial division ordered that the present applicant/appellant, the respondent to the application in the trial division, Jupiters Limited trading as Conrad Treasury Brisbane ("Jupiters") comply with its duty to give the present respondent, the applicant in the trial division, Ian Haug, copies of documents in Jupiters' possession and specified information as required by section 27 Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 Queensland within 14 days.

Jupiters has appealed from that decision.  It applies for a stay of the primary Judge's order until delivery of judgment in the appeal.  The respondent resists that application. 
Because of the circumstances of the appeal, it will receive some priority and is able to be heard on 1 June 2007.  The parties tell me today that that is a suitable date to both of them. Material filed by Jupiters supports its contention that the stay should be granted because the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the documents were disclosed but the appeal was successful.

One affidavit on which Jupiters relies states that the information it would be required to disclose under the order includes items such as floor plans of surveillance cameras in Jupiters Casino.  These surveillance cameras are an integral part of Jupiters security system.  Another affidavit filed by Jupiters states that the primary Judge's order requires Jupiters to disclose personnel files relating to five employees containing personal and confidential information.
The power of this Court to order a stay under UCPR rule 761 is discretionary. Jupiters here bears the onus of justifying a granting of the stay. The appellant's appeal is not plainly unmeritorious, it does not appear to have been lodged merely as a delaying tactic or to be in any other way an abuse of process.

Though it has some of the hallmarks of an appeal from an interlocutory order, it is not plainly in that category.  It is sufficient for the purposes of this application to observe that the appeal is arguable.  The appeal is likely to be heard within six weeks so that if the stay is granted but the appellant is unsuccessful in the appeal Mr Haug will not be long delayed in the preparation of any case he may have against Jupiters.  On the other hand, were the stay not granted, the appeal, if successful, may be, for practical purposes, pointless. 

In these circumstances the balance of convenience warrants the granting of the stay.  I order, one, that the orders made by Justice Lyons on 26 March 2007 are stayed until the delivery of judgment in the appeal or other order.  Two, parties are to progress the appeal in a timely manner in accordance with the directions of the Deputy-Registrar appeals.  Three, liberty to apply on two days notice to the other side.  Four, the costs of and incidental to this application are costs of the appeal.

‑‑‑‑‑