Merton v Bank of Queensland Ltd
Case
•
[2013] NSWCA 159
•27 May 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Merton v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2013] NSWCA 159
[2013] NSWCA 159
27 May 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Merton v Bank of Queensland Ltd*, Mr Merton and Ms Butler (the applicants) sought a stay of proceedings pending an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The respondent was the Bank of Queensland Ltd.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to warrant the grant of a stay of proceedings.
Gleeson JA considered the principles governing the grant of a stay pending an application for special leave to appeal. His Honour noted that such applications are exceptional and require more than a mere assertion that an appeal will be filed. The applicants needed to show that there were substantial prospects of success on the appeal and that injustice would result if the stay were not granted. In this instance, the applicants failed to establish the necessary exceptional circumstances, as they did not demonstrate that the appeal had a real prospect of success or that irreparable harm would befall them if the stay was refused.
Consequently, the notice of motion filed by the applicants was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to warrant the grant of a stay of proceedings.
Gleeson JA considered the principles governing the grant of a stay pending an application for special leave to appeal. His Honour noted that such applications are exceptional and require more than a mere assertion that an appeal will be filed. The applicants needed to show that there were substantial prospects of success on the appeal and that injustice would result if the stay were not granted. In this instance, the applicants failed to establish the necessary exceptional circumstances, as they did not demonstrate that the appeal had a real prospect of success or that irreparable harm would befall them if the stay was refused.
Consequently, the notice of motion filed by the applicants was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] VSCA 313
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Merton v Bank of Queensland Ltd
[2013] NSWCA 228
Alldinger v Du Ranot
[2023] NSWDC 37
Crouch and Lyndon (a Firm) v IPG Finance Australia Pty Ltd
[2013] QCA 378
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Merton v Bank of Queensland Ltd
[2013] NSWCA 115
Rinehart v Welker
[2012] NSWCA 1