Ryan v Vizovitis

[2015] ACTCA 28

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Ryan v Vizovitis

Citation:

[2015] ACTCA 28

Hearing Dates:

17 December 2014, 5 February 2015, 3 March 2015

DecisionDate:

19 June 2015

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [12]-[13]

Category:

Interlocutory application

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Appeal from the Master – interlocutory application – stay application – whether a stay should be granted conditional upon the appellant paying the judgment sum and costs from the proceedings below into court – where the appellant has reasonable grounds of appeal – where there is a real prospect of the appellant suffering irremediable damage if the stay is not granted – where the appeal is likely to be dealt with expeditiously – extension of time application – r 5409 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to file the notice of appeal on the respondents.

Legislation Cited:

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5409

Cases Cited:

Davey v Herbst and Bray [2011] ACTCA 27

Vizovitis v Ryan [2014] ACTSC 243

Parties:

Eunice Catherine Mary Ryan (Appellant)

Georgia Vizovitis (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented (Appellant)

Mr S Hausfeld (Respondent)

Solicitors

Ryans Barristers and Solicitors (Appellant)

DibbsBarker (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 52 of 2014

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Supreme Court

Before:  Master Harper

Date of Decision:         19 September 2014

Case Title:  Vizovitis v Ryan

Citation: [2014] ACTSC 243

BURNS J:

Procedural history

1. On 3 March 2015, I heard three applications in these proceedings:

(a)an application by the appellant dated 8 December 2014 that the judgment of Master Harper be stayed pending the outcome of this appeal;

(b)an application by the respondent dated 16 December 2014 that the Notice of Appeal be set aside or, alternatively, that the appeal be stayed until such time as the appellant obtains an order from the Court of Appeal permitting service of the Notice on the respondent later than seven days after the appeal was filed, and that such permit be conditional upon the appellant paying into court a sum of $469,587.23, being $53,250.00 for the judgment sum and $416,337.23 for costs of the proceedings below; and

(c)an application by the appellant dated 12 February 2015 that time for service of the Notice of Appeal be extended.

1. On 3 March 2015, I made an order that the time for service of the Notice of Appeal be extended to 28 November 2014, although I reserved the question of whether that order should be conditional as submitted by the respondent. I also reserved my decision on the question of a stay of the orders of a Master Harper. I have concluded that the order extending time for service of the Notice of Appeal should not be conditional, and that an order staying the orders of Master Harper should be made on condition that the appellant pays the judgment sum of $53,250.00 into court pending the outcome of the appeal.

1. The background of the dispute between the parties is set out in the…