Prestige and Rich Pty Ltd v McGregor

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prestige & Rich Pty Ltd v McGregor [2019] QCA 225

PARTIES:

PRESTIGE & RICH PTY LTD
ACN 141 590 383
(applicant)
v
JANEY ELLEN McGREGOR OF THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 236 of 2019
DC No 75 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Stay of Execution

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Brisbane – [2019] QDC 151 (Rackemann DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

22 October 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGE:

Morrison JA

ORDERS:

1.   The orders of the District Court made on 20 August 2019 in BD75/2019 and the orders made in the Magistrates Court at Holland Park on 18 December 2018, in matter number 1859/18, are stayed pending determination of the application for leave to appeal.

2.   Costs of the parties are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF ORDERS – where the applicant was convicted of an offence under s 28(2)(a) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld) by the Magistrates Court – where an appeal to the District Court was dismissed – where the applicant has sought a stay of the whole of the orders made by the District Court and the whole of the orders made in the Magistrates Court – whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success – whether the allowing of a stay would be prejudicial to either if the parties if granted

COUNSEL:

Richard Hong, general manager of the appellant, with leave
K Hillard for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of Fair Trading for the respondent

  1. MORRISON JA:  Prestige & Rich Pty Ltd has applied for leave to appeal in respect of the orders of a District Court judge made on 20 August 2019.  In turn, those orders were made on an appeal from a decision of a magistrate handed down on 18 December 2018.  The decision of the District Court judge[1] dismissed the appeal, which had been instituted pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), and ordered the applicant to pay costs.

  2. In the Magistrates Court the applicant was convicted of an offence under s 28(2)(a) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld). It was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay costs totalling $2,223.75.

  3. The stay sought on this application is of the whole of the orders made by the District Court and the whole of the orders made in the Magistrates Court.

  4. In order to succeed in the grant of a stay the applicant must show that the circumstances indicate that the grant is an appropriate one.  That involves a consideration of:[2]

    (a)whether there is a good arguable case on the appeal; in other words, the likelihood of success in the appeal;

    (b)the prejudice to the applicant if the stay is not ordered; and

    (c)any competing prejudice to the respondents in the event that a stay is granted.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Prestige and Rich Pty Ltd v McGregor and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] QCA 225
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prestige and Rich Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought an action against McGregor, the defendant, in the Magistrates Court of Queensland. The case arose from a conviction of the defendant under section 28(2)(a) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld), concerning alleged mismanagement of client funds. Following the conviction, the defendant appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the defendant applied for a stay of the orders made by both the District Court and the Magistrates Court, pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success and whether granting a stay would be prejudicial to either party. The court needed to balance the defendant's right to a fair appeal process against the potential harm to the plaintiff if the orders were stayed.

The court determined that the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, as there were significant legal arguments that warranted further examination. Additionally, the court found that allowing a stay would not be prejudicial to the plaintiff, given the nature of the orders and the context of the case. Consequently, the orders of both the District Court and the Magistrates Court were stayed pending the determination of the application for leave to appeal. The costs of the parties were reserved for a later determination.

The court's orders reflect a careful consideration of the defendant's right to appeal and the potential impact on the plaintiff, ultimately concluding that a stay was appropriate in this instance. The stay allows for a thorough review of the legal issues involved, while also ensuring that the plaintiff is not unduly prejudiced during this period.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The orders of the District Court made on 20 August 2019 in BD75/2019 and the orders made in the Magistrates Court at Holland Park on 18 December 2018, in matter number 1859/18, are stayed pending determination of the application for leave to appeal.

2. Costs of the parties are reserved.

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.