Thomas v Driat Pty Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Thomas v Driat Pty Limited
Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 266
Hearing Date(s): 13 August 2012
Decision Date: 13 August 2012
Jurisdiction:
Before: Beazley JA
Decision:

1. Order (1) made by Windeyer AJ on 22 June 2012 in proceedings 2011/271645 be stayed until further order save to the extent the respondent Driat Pty Limited enforces its second mortgage over the property at *** ******* ***** Point Piper;
2. Execution of the writ of possession relating to the property at *** ******* ***** Wildes Meadow dated 29 June 2012 be stayed until the determination of the appellant's appeal or until further order of the Court;
3. Liberty to the respondent Driat Pty Limited to apply in respect of these orders on 7 days notice should the appellant be in default of the procedural rules relating to preparation of the appeal;
4. Costs of the motion filed 6 July 2012 be costs in the appeal;
5. Note this matter may be appropriate for expedition once it is ready for hearing.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of orders of lower court pending appeal - Whether stay of writ of possession of appellant's home ought to be granted - Factors affecting grant of stay - Prospects of success on appeal - Likelihood of relevant hardship - Whether appeal rendered nugatory without stay - Stay of execution of writ of possession granted.
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited: Serobian v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2009] NSWCA 309
Texts Cited:
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Carey Yulan Adria Thomas (Appellant)
Driat Pty Limited (Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
S A Levitt (Appellant)
D Price (Respondent)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Levitt Robinson Solicitors (Appellant)
Kemp Strang (Respondent)
File number(s): CA 2012/207761
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before: Windeyer J
- Date of Decision: 22 June 2012
- Citation: Driat Pty Ltd v Thomas [2012] NSWSC 683
- Court File Number(s) 2011/271645
Publication Restriction: No

JUDGMENT

  1. HER HONOUR: The applicant, Ms Carey Thomas, by notice of motion filed on 6 July 2012, seeks orders 1 and 2 in the notice of motion filed on that date. The orders sought were:

    "1 The execution of the writ of possession issued on 29 June 2012 be stayed until the determination of the anticipated appeal before the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal or until further order of this Honourable Court.

    2 The operation and enforcement of the judgment of Windeyer AJ handed down 22 June 2012 be stayed until the determination of the anticipated appeal before the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal or until…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thomas v Driat Pty Limited 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
[2012] NSWCA 266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Thomas v Driat Pty Limited*, the appellant sought a stay of orders made by Windeyer AJ, specifically a writ of possession concerning the appellant's home. The respondent, Driat Pty Limited, was seeking to enforce its rights under a second mortgage over the property.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant a stay of the writ of possession pending the determination of the appellant's appeal. This required the Court to consider the relevant factors for granting such a stay, including the prospects of success on appeal, the likelihood of hardship to the appellant if the stay was not granted, and whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory without the stay.

Beazley JA considered the factors relevant to granting a stay of execution. The Court determined that a stay was warranted in this instance, balancing the respondent's rights under the second mortgage with the appellant's interest in retaining possession of their home pending the appeal.

The Court ordered that the order made by Windeyer AJ on 22 June 2012 be stayed until further order, except to the extent that the respondent could enforce its second mortgage. Furthermore, the execution of the writ of possession dated 29 June 2012 was stayed until the determination of the appeal or further order. Liberty was granted to the respondent to apply in respect of these orders, and the costs of the motion were made costs in the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order (1) made by Windeyer AJ on 22 June 2012 in proceedings 2011/271645 be stayed until further order save to the extent the respondent Driat Pty Limited enforces its second mortgage over the property at *** ******* ***** Point Piper;

2. Execution of the writ of possession relating to the property at *** ******* ***** Wildes Meadow dated 29 June 2012 be stayed until the determination of the appellant's appeal or until further order of the Court;

3. Liberty to the respondent Driat Pty Limited to apply in respect of these orders on 7 days notice should the appellant be in default of the procedural rules relating to preparation of the appeal;

4. Costs of the motion filed 6 July 2012 be costs in the appeal;

5. Note this matter may be appropriate for expedition once it is ready for hearing.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.