Legal Research
Cases
Vision Australia Ltd v Elisha

Vision Australia Ltd v Elisha

Case [2023] VSCA 70 31 March 2023

Stay of Proceedings

Appeal

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2023 0018

VISION AUSTRALIA LTD	Applicant
v
ADAM ELISHA	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON P and KENNEDY JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 March 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 March 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 70
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2022] VSC 754 (O’Meara J)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay – Application for stay of orders requiring payment of judgment sum pending appeal – Whether special or exceptional circumstances exist – Whether risk that proposed appeal would be rendered nugatory because applicant may not be restored substantially to former position if stay not granted – Application for stay dismissed.

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 rr 64.39, 66.16.

Yuanda Vic Pty Ltd v Façade Designs International Pty Ltd [2020] VSCA 269; Cellante v G Kallis Industries Pty Ltd [1991] 2 VR 653; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd (No 1) (1986) 160 CLR 220; Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2008] VSCA 122.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr G Worth
Respondent:		Mr J Brett with Mr E Makowski
Solicitors
Applicant:	IDP Lawyers
Respondent:	Arnold Thomas & Becker

EMERTON P
KENNEDY JA:

Introduction

On 10 February 2023, Vision Australia Ltd (‘Vision’) applied for a stay of orders made on 15 December 2022 by a judge of the Trial Division. Pursuant to those orders, Vision was required to pay damages in the sum of $1,442,404.50 to Adam Elisha, the successful plaintiff. The orders were temporarily stayed pending an application for leave to appeal, which has now been made.
On 29 March 2023, we heard argument on the stay application and determined that it should not be granted, as special or exceptional circumstances had not been established. We made orders dismissing the stay application and requiring Vision to pay Mr Elisha’s costs of the application.
These are our reasons for dismissing the stay application.

Background

Vision is a not-for-profit organisation which carries on a business by which it provides services to persons with impaired vision.
On 27 September 2006, Mr Elisha was employed by Vision as an ‘adaptive technology consultant’ at 25 years of age. His work involved setting up or assisting with software and hardware systems for Vision’s customers. This required him to visit homes and workplaces throughout Victoria (among other locations).[1]
[1]Elisha v Vision Australia Ltd [2022] VSC 754, [1]–[4] (‘Reasons’).
On 23 March 2015, Mr Elisha went to Bairnsdale for work where he stayed at the Bairnsdale International Hotel (the ‘Bairnsdale Hotel’). During his stay, Mr Elisha interacted with an employee of the hotel, having complained of a noise outside his room. The events of that evening were the subject of major controversy between the parties.
In early May 2015, two other Vision staff members attended the Bairnsdale Hotel and learned of the hotel employee’s account of the earlier events involving Mr Elisha. The incident was subsequently reported to a manager at Vision.[2] The matter was then elevated to a human…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Vision Australia Ltd v Elisha

Details

AGLC: Vision Australia Ltd v Elisha [2023] VSCA 70
Case: [2023] VSCA 70
Decision Date: 31 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vision Australia Ltd sought to enforce a judgment against Elisha, who applied for a stay of the orders requiring payment pending appeal. The dispute arose from a decision in the County Court of Victoria. The central legal issue before the court was whether there were special or exceptional circumstances justifying a stay of the orders pending the outcome of Elisha's appeal. The court considered whether granting a stay was necessary to prevent the appeal from becoming futile, particularly if Elisha could not be restored to their former position if the stay was not granted.

The court examined relevant authorities, including Yuanda Vic Pty Ltd v Façade Designs International Pty Ltd, Cellante v G Kallis Industries Pty Ltd, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd, and Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The court found that the test for granting a stay was whether there was a real prospect of the appeal succeeding and whether the applicant would suffer significant hardship if a stay was not granted. The court concluded that Elisha had not demonstrated special or exceptional circumstances, and therefore, the application for a stay was dismissed.

Given the findings, the court ruled that Vision Australia Ltd was entitled to enforce the judgment against Elisha. The orders requiring Elisha to pay the judgment sum were not stayed, and the appeal process continued without a stay. The decision underscores the stringent criteria required for obtaining a stay in such matters and highlights the importance of demonstrating exceptional circumstances to succeed in such applications.

Orders