Read the full judgment text of CACV 87/2017 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 13 October 2017 before Hon Kwan JA, Barma JA.
Civil procedure — stay of execution pending appeal — principles for stay application — appellant must show good reasons including strong appeal or risk of appeal rendered nugatory — burden of proof on appellant — financial evidence required to establish risk of serious financial harm or ruin — contractual dispute over payment for subcontract works — trial judgment for defendant — plaintiff’s application for stay refused on grounds appeal lacks strong likelihood of success and financial evidence insufficient — three grounds of appeal challenging findings on agreed rates, valuation method and unpleaded claim all found weak or without merit — costs awarded to defendant for stay application fixed at $76,700 — orders nisi granted with 7-day submission period. The plaintiff failed to show good reasons justifying a stay. Appeal prospects were weak, and the financial evidence did not demonstrate risk that enforcement would render appeal nugatory. Consequently, the stay of execution was refused with costs. The judgment clarifies the standard for stay applications and application of expert valuation evidence.
Legal issues: Application for stay of execution pending appeal · First ground of appeal – finding on agreed rates · Second ground of appeal – valuation without apportionment · Third ground of appeal – claim for additional day works
Outcome: Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs
Cites 1 case