Webuildem Pty Ltd v Arab Bank Australia Ltd

Webuildem Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought leave to appeal from a decision of the primary judge who refused to grant a stay of consent orders. These consent orders had been made upon the settlement of earlier proceedings between Webuildem Pty Ltd and Arab Bank Australia Ltd (the respondent). The applicant advanced various grounds for challenging the consent orders and the underlying settlement agreement, but no formal proceedings had been instituted to have either the agreement rescinded or the orders set aside.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in refusing to grant a stay of the consent orders. This required the Court to consider the procedural irregularity of seeking a stay by way of an interlocutory application when no substantive proceedings had been commenced to challenge the validity of the consent orders or the underlying agreement. The Court also had to assess the prospects of success of the applicant's purported grounds of challenge.

The Court of Appeal held that the interlocutory application for a stay was irregular, particularly in the absence of any proceedings seeking to set aside the consent orders or rescind the agreement. The Court noted that the grounds of challenge raised by the applicant appeared to have no apparent prospects of success. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.