Maksacheff v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Maksacheff (the applicant) sought a stay of enforcement orders made by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the respondent) until a substantive matter between the parties could be heard. The application was heard by Sackville AJA in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of the enforcement orders. This required the court to consider the applicant's prospects of success in the substantive proceedings and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

Sackville AJA dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success in the substantive proceedings to justify the grant of a stay. The court applied the principles governing applications for interlocutory relief, which require a party seeking a stay to show a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction. In this instance, the applicant failed to satisfy the threshold for demonstrating a serious question to be tried.

Consequently, the applicant's motion filed on 14 March 2017 was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.