GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE v LARGE [1988] NSWCA 55

GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE v LARGE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P 26 September 1988, 26 September 1988

[1988] NSWCA 55

PRACTICE — appeal — stay — appeal on quantum — trial judge refuses stay — motion for stay from Court of Appeal — part payment of judgment sum — no need for further protection — held: motion dismissed as relief is unnecessary — no question of principle. PRACTICE — use of proper titles in Court of Appeal Motions — parties to be described as "claimant" and "opponent" not "appellant" and "respondent". ORDERS 1. Execution upon the judgment of Judge Levine stayed pending the orders of the Court disposing of the appeal. 2. Motion otherwise dismissed, the Court noting that a sum of $35,000 together with out-of-pockets has already been paid to the opponent, the balance to abide the outcome of the appeal. 3. The claimant to pay the opponent's costs of the motion.

Kirby P By motion, the claimant, the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales, which is the appellant in these proceedings, seeks orders that the execution of the judgment of the District Court be stayed and that the costs of the motion be costs in the appeal. I am dealing with the motion pursuant to s46 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.

I break off to observe that in these proceedings, once again, the title is not correctly set out. No reference is made to the title of the motion. In motions in the Court of Appeal, the parties are to be described as "claimant" or "opponent", having regard to which party has instituted and which is responding to the motion. It is incorrect to describe the parties by their titles in the appeal (i.e. "appellant" or "respondent"). Nor are the orders sought in the motion in proper form. However, the orders sought are, in substance, those which I have outlined.