Karamihos v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd

In *Karamihos v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd*, the applicants sought a stay of execution of a writ issued by the Court of Appeal, pending the determination of their application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The dispute concerned the applicants' family home, which was the subject of the execution.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether special circumstances existed to warrant a stay, applying the test in *Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd*, and whether there was a substantial prospect that special leave to appeal would be granted by the High Court. The Court also considered whether the dispute was primarily factual and whether granting a stay would likely occasion loss to the respondent bank.

Barrett JA determined that the fact the subject property was a family home did not, in itself, constitute special circumstances for the purposes of the *Jennings* test. His Honour found that the applicants had not demonstrated a substantial prospect of success in their application for special leave, noting the essentially factual nature of the dispute. Consequently, the balance of convenience did not favour granting the stay.

The Court ordered that the notice of motion be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondent's costs. The previously ordered stay of execution pending the delivery of judgment was no longer operative. Liberty was granted to the respondent to apply for dispensation regarding the execution of the writ of possession.