Richardson v Lindsay

In *Richardson v Lindsay*, the appellant, an impecunious plaintiff, sought a stay of execution of a costs order made against her following the dismissal of her claim at a final hearing. The respondents were taking steps to have the costs order quantified. The matter came before Leeming JA.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of execution of the costs order pending the determination of the appellant's expedited appeal against the decision dismissing her claim.

Leeming JA granted the stay of enforcement of the costs order. The court applied the principles governing applications for a stay of execution, which generally require the applicant to demonstrate a strong or arguable case on appeal and that the balance of convenience favours granting the stay. The impecunious nature of the appellant was a significant factor in the assessment of the balance of convenience, as enforcement of the costs order could prevent her from pursuing her appeal.

The court ordered that the enforcement of the costs order made on 22 October 2018 against the appellant and in favour of the respondents be stayed until further order. This order was subject to any subsequent orders of the Court and would lapse upon the final disposal of the appeal. No order was made as to the costs of the notice of motion.