Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited
Case
•
[2017] NSWCA 296
•13 November 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited [2017] NSWCA 296
[2017] NSWCA 296
13 November 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an application by Ms. Mao for a stay of interlocutory orders made by a primary judge. These orders had appointed the NSW Trustee & Guardian as manager of a portion of Ms. Mao's estate pursuant to section 41(2) of the *NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009* (NSW). The application for stay was sought pending Ms. Mao's application for leave to appeal the primary judge's orders.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the mere filing of an application for leave to appeal was sufficient grounds to grant a stay of the primary judge's orders. The Court also considered an application to join the solicitors of the current tutor to the proceedings and to amend a notice of motion.
White JA held that the mere filing of an application for leave to appeal does not, in itself, constitute a basis for granting a stay of proceedings. The Court found that there was no demonstrable basis presented by Ms. Mao to justify staying the orders made by the primary judge. Consequently, the application for a stay was refused. The Court also granted leave to amend the notice of motion and ordered that the solicitors of the current tutor be joined to the proceedings.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the mere filing of an application for leave to appeal was sufficient grounds to grant a stay of the primary judge's orders. The Court also considered an application to join the solicitors of the current tutor to the proceedings and to amend a notice of motion.
White JA held that the mere filing of an application for leave to appeal does not, in itself, constitute a basis for granting a stay of proceedings. The Court found that there was no demonstrable basis presented by Ms. Mao to justify staying the orders made by the primary judge. Consequently, the application for a stay was refused. The Court also granted leave to amend the notice of motion and ordered that the solicitors of the current tutor be joined to the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Raoul (by his tutor Karamihas) v Hanna [2017] NSWSC 728
Cases Citing This Decision
7
Mao v B T Funds Management Limited and Ors
[2021] NSWCA 295
Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited (No. 2)
[2017] NSWCA 297
Stekovic v Radovanovic (No 2)
[2023] NSWSC 1602
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
4
Chen v Lym International
[2009] NSWCA 121
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd
[2002] NSWCA 383
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd
[2002] NSWCA 383