NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CITATION: Tyndall v ACN 062 895 774 Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 102
FILE NUMBER(S):
40095 of 2006
HEARING DATE(S): 23 April 2007
EX TEMPORE DATE: 23 April 2007
PARTIES:
Dianne Tyndall - Claimant/Respondent
ACN 062 895 774 Pty Ltd - Opponent/Appellant
JUDGMENT OF: McColl JA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1110/2004
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sully J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 7 December 2005
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2005] NSWSC 1124
COUNSEL:
M Sahade - Claimant/Respondent
D J Durston - Opponent/Appellant
SOLICITORS:
Comino Prassas - Claimant/Respondent
Searle & Associates Lawyers - Opponent/Appellant
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – application for stay of judgment pending application for special leave to appeal to the High Court – applicable principles – relevance of prospects of success of application for special leave
LEGISLATION CITED:
De Facto Relationships Act 1984
Property (Relationships) Act 1984
CASES CITED:
ACN 062 895 774 Pty Ltd v Tyndall [2007] NSWCA 64
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hewitt v Court [1983] HCA 7; (1983) 149 CLR 639
Minister for Local Government & Anor v South Sydney City Council (No 3) [2002] NSWCA 326
New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 107
DECISION:
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40095/06
McCOLL JA
23 April 2007
Tyndall v ACN 062 895 774
Judgment – Ex Tempore
McCOLL JA: This is an application by Dianne Tyndall seeking a stay of the orders of the Court of Appeal made on 27 March 2007, until such time as the claimant’s rights of appeal to the High Court have been exhausted. She also seeks an order restraining the opponent from selling, disposing, encumbering, or otherwise dealing with the subject property at 4 Carlow Avenue, Killarney Heights until those rights of appeal rights have been exhausted, unless a debt represented by the judgment of this Court in proceedings number 1594 of 1998 is paid.
The facts relating to the application are fully set out in the judgment of this Court of 27 March 2007 referred to in the first prayer for relief: ACN 062 895 774 Pty Ltd v Tyndall [2007] NSWCA 64. They can be shortly stated for the purposes of this judgment by reference to the headnote.
The opponent is a company which was registered by a Mr Clee, the claimant’s former de facto partner. It was the corporate entity through which he conducted a debt collecting business. It also operated as the trustee of his property and superannuation fund.
In 1994 the claimant and Mr Clee, who were then living in a de facto relationship, selected the property referred to in the second prayer for relief at Killarney Heights as their home. The opponent purchased it but it was subject to a one hundred per cent mortgage to the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tyndall v ACN 062 895 774 Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 102
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the applicable principles governing an application for a stay of judgment pending an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, and in particular, the relevance of the prospects of success of that application.
The Court of Appeal applied the principles established in *Sydneymate Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation* [2007] NSWCA 109, which require an applicant for a stay to demonstrate that their application for special leave to appeal has a real prospect of success. In this instance, the Court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that their proposed appeal to the High Court had any real prospect of success, and therefore, the application for a stay was dismissed.
The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
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.