Quach v ATM Residential Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application by Michael Van Thanh Quach (the applicant) for a stay of orders made by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 19 August 2022. The primary judge, McCallum CJ, had ordered that ATM Residential Pty Ltd (the respondent) be removed as a party to the proceedings, that the applicant pay the respondent's costs, and that the proceedings be dismissed. The applicant sought to stay these orders pending his appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the exercise of discretion in granting a stay of the primary judge's orders. Specifically, the applicant raised two grounds for the stay: first, that the respondent's application to be removed as a party was filed out of time and without leave, contrary to a Registrar's order; and second, that the respondent's application relied on contradictory factual statements. The court also considered the principles for granting a stay pending appeal, which require the applicant to show an arguable case and that the appeal would be rendered of no effect or utility without the stay.

The court reasoned that while the applicant had raised an arguable ground concerning the respondent's late filing, he had failed to establish that the appeal would be rendered of no effect or utility if a stay was not granted. The applicant's submissions regarding prejudice, assistance to the court, and the subpoena process were found to be unconvincing. The court also noted that the applicant's reliance on the High Court decision in *Re Chief Commissioner of Police (Vic)* was misplaced as it concerned supplementary submissions and evidence, not the late filing of an application. The allegations of contradictory factual statements were considered matters to be agitated on appeal, not grounds for a stay.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.