[2009] QCA 214
COURT OF APPEAL
CHESTERMAN JA
Appeal No 7394 of 2009
SC No 12896 of 2009
| MAYAMAN DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD | Applicant |
| and | |
| TQ CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD | Respondent |
BRISBANE
DATE 28/07/2009
ORDER
CHESTERMAN JA: I will dismiss the application for a stay of Justice Daubney's order, the application for a stay being filed on 20th of July 2009.
I will order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of an incidental to the application for the stay, to be assessed on the standard basis.
...
HIS HONOUR: Those are the orders I make.
Details
- AGLC
- Mayaman Developments P/L v TQ Constructions P/L [2009] QCA 214
- Case
- [2009] QCA 214
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mayaman Developments Pty Ltd sought an appeal against a decision made by Justice Daubney, which was related to a dispute with TQ Constructions Pty Ltd. The nature of the dispute involved a construction contract and related payments. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland, with Chesterman JA presiding over the matter.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted a stay of Justice Daubney's order. The applicant, Mayaman Developments, argued that the stay should be granted to allow for further proceedings to be heard, while the respondent, TQ Constructions, opposed the stay. The court needed to decide whether the application for a stay should be granted, and if not, whether any costs should be awarded to the respondent.
The court found that the application for a stay should be dismissed. Chesterman JA determined that there were no grounds for the stay to be granted and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs associated with the application for the stay. The costs were to be assessed on a standard basis, and the appeal was dismissed. The final orders included the dismissal of the application for a stay and the awarding of costs to the respondent.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted a stay of Justice Daubney's order. The applicant, Mayaman Developments, argued that the stay should be granted to allow for further proceedings to be heard, while the respondent, TQ Constructions, opposed the stay. The court needed to decide whether the application for a stay should be granted, and if not, whether any costs should be awarded to the respondent.
The court found that the application for a stay should be dismissed. Chesterman JA determined that there were no grounds for the stay to be granted and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs associated with the application for the stay. The costs were to be assessed on a standard basis, and the appeal was dismissed. The final orders included the dismissal of the application for a stay and the awarding of costs to the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.