Ramsay v BigTinCan Pty Ltd

In *Ramsay v BigTinCan Pty Ltd*, the applicants sought a stay of enforcement of orders made by Ball J and the Court of Appeal pending their application for special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of enforcement of the existing orders. In determining this, the court was required to consider the relevant factors for ordering a stay, including the prospects of success of the special leave application and the potential prejudice to both the applicants and the respondent if a stay were granted or refused.

Basten JA granted the stay, subject to several conditions. The applicants were required to undertake to proceed expeditiously with their special leave application and any subsequent appeal. The first applicant further undertook not to dispose of, alienate, charge, or encumber his assets, except for ordinary living costs and legal expenses related to the special leave application. Additionally, the first applicant was ordered to charge his equity in a specific property with his liability to the respondent under the existing orders and to notify the respondent of any divorce proceedings initiated by his wife or any attempts by her to deal with that property.