Trentelman v The Owners - Strata Plan No 76700
Case
•
[2021] NSWCA 62
•19 April 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Trentelman v The Owners - Strata Plan No 76700 [2021] NSWCA 62
[2021] NSWCA 62
19 April 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Trentelman, sought a stay of execution of a judgment pending an appeal against the Owners - Strata Plan No 76700. The application was heard by Leeming JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant an interlocutory stay of execution. This required the Court to consider the established principles for granting such relief, particularly in circumstances where the appeal was conceded to be reasonably arguable. The Court had to assess whether the applicant had demonstrated a significantly greater prospect of success on appeal and weigh this against the balance of convenience.
Leeming JA noted that the applicant had not established a significantly greater prospect of success on appeal, which is a crucial element in determining the appropriateness of interlocutory relief. While the appeal was conceded to be reasonably arguable, this alone was insufficient to warrant a stay. The Court considered the balance of convenience and concluded that the threshold for granting a stay had not been met.
Consequently, the Court dismissed paragraph 2 of the notice of motion, which sought the stay of execution. Liberty to apply in respect of the interlocutory regime was granted on two business days' notice, and the question of costs relating to paragraph 2 of the notice of motion was reserved.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant an interlocutory stay of execution. This required the Court to consider the established principles for granting such relief, particularly in circumstances where the appeal was conceded to be reasonably arguable. The Court had to assess whether the applicant had demonstrated a significantly greater prospect of success on appeal and weigh this against the balance of convenience.
Leeming JA noted that the applicant had not established a significantly greater prospect of success on appeal, which is a crucial element in determining the appropriateness of interlocutory relief. While the appeal was conceded to be reasonably arguable, this alone was insufficient to warrant a stay. The Court considered the balance of convenience and concluded that the threshold for granting a stay had not been met.
Consequently, the Court dismissed paragraph 2 of the notice of motion, which sought the stay of execution. Liberty to apply in respect of the interlocutory regime was granted on two business days' notice, and the question of costs relating to paragraph 2 of the notice of motion was reserved.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
1
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd
[2002] NSWCA 383
DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd
[2011] NSWCA 348
Peters v the Queen
[1998] HCA 7