|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| January 2023 |
|
|
Ex parte stay refused where urgency related to counsel’s personal interests and counsel was not a party to the appealed proceedings.
Civil procedure — Stay pending appeal — Discretionary relief requiring special circumstances; ex parte applications; standing — non-party legal practitioner cannot seek stay to protect personal interests; criminal review proceedings.
|
12 January 2023 |
|
Court refused ex parte stay pending appeal where claimed prejudice affected counsel, not the applicant, and no special circumstances shown.
Criminal procedure — Stay pending appeal — Ex parte applications — Applicant must show special circumstances — Non-party (legal practitioner) cannot seek stay to protect own interests — Stay should not revive subordinate court proceedings unjustly.
|
12 January 2023 |
|
Court dismissed ex parte stay as alleged urgency concerned the applicant’s counsel, a non‑party, not the parties to the appeal.
Criminal procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — discretionary remedy — special circumstances required — ex parte application — non‑party’s interest — counsel cannot seek relief in applicant’s name.
|
12 January 2023 |
|
A stay pending appeal was refused where urgency related to the applicant’s non-party lawyer, not the applicant, and no special injustice was shown.
Criminal procedure — stay pending appeal — ex parte application — discretionary stay — non-party legal practitioner lacks standing to seek relief in applicant's name — protection of successful litigant's fruits of judgment.
|
12 January 2023 |