Denning v Jet Development Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] QCA 63
[2007] QCA 63
1
COURT OF APPEAL
WILLIAMS JA
KEANE JA
Appeal No 10779 of 2006
ROYALIN MARGARET DENNING Applicant
and
JET DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
ACN 107 913 762 First Respondent
and
FERNVALE PROJECTS PTY LTD
ACN 119 408 767 Second Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 07/03/2007
JUDGMENT
-- 1 of 2 --
2 JUDGMENT
MR A M DAUBNEY SC, with him MR P J McCAFFERTY (instructed by
Morgan Conley Solicitors) for the applicant
MR J W PEDEN (instructed by Flower & Hart) for the respondents
WILLIAMS JA: The applicant has not demonstrated that there is
any serious or substantive question of law to be raised on the
special leave application.
The decision of this Court involved the construction of
clauses in a contract which were limited to the contract in
question. Any stay would, on the material, cause significant
inconvenience and possible significant loss to the
respondents. The respondents' development is at risk if there
is any substantial delay. Any undertaking as to damages would
not be sufficient protection to the respondents.
In my view the appropriate test for a stay pending an
application for special leave to appeal to the High Court is
to be found in Jennings Constructions Ltd v Burgundy Royale
Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681 and J v L & A Services
Pty Ltd [1993] 2 QdR 380. Applying that test, the application
for a stay should be refused with costs.
KEANE JA: I agree.
WILLIAMS JA: That is the order of the Court.
-----
-- 2 of 2 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCA/2007/063