Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Martin & Pleasance Pty Ltd v A Nelson & Co Limited [2021] FCA 368 File number: NSD 237 of 2021
Judgment of: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 30 March 2021
Date of publication of reasons: 19 April 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of interlocutory judgment – whether appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay – whether the balance of harm to the applicant outweighed the harm to the respondent in favour of a stay – whether leave application to be heard concurrently with or immediately before appeal – whether hearing of leave application and appeal to be expedited – whether applicant had an arguable case – relevant principles regarding whether a stay of the judgment should be granted
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law, ss 18, 29(1)(a), (g), (h) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 25(2), 25(2)(a), (e), 29, 37M Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 36.08(2), 41.03
Cases cited: A Nelson & Co Limited v Martin & Pleasance Pty Limited (No 2) [2021] FCA 242 A Nelson & Co Limited v Martin & Pleasance Pty Limited [2021] FCA 228 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v BMW (Australia) Limited (No 2) [2003] FCA 864 Beecham Group Limited v Bristol Laboratories Pty Limited (1968) 118 CLR 618 Collins House Pty Ltd v Golden Age Sunrise Development Pty Ltd (2015) 114 IPR 1; [2015] FCA 724 Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 Ensham Resources Pty Limited v AIOI Insurance Company Limited [2012] FCA 822 Fair Work Ombudsman v Toyota Material Handling (NSW) Pty Ltd (2012) 237 FCR 454; [2012] FCA 347 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 In-N-Out Burgers, Inc v Hashtag Burgers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 772 Jennings Constructions Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681 Nichol v Discovery Africa Limited [2016] FCA 254 Oswal v Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) [2011] FCA 536 Phillip Morris (Australia) Limited v Nixon [1999] FCA 1281 Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation (1996) 67 FCR 65 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238; [2011] FCAFC 156
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate