FAI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v MURPHY SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY AP, CLARKE JA and SHELLER JA 21 July 1993 [1993] NSWCA 91 Mahoney AP. This is an application for leave to appeal. The practice of the court is not to give reasons on applications for leave to appeal. However, it is proper to indicate that, in view of the statutory provision depriving this Court of the right to hear an appeal in circumstances set forth in the statute, it is arguable the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The court does not decide that issue. It is not necessary for it to do so. The court is of the opinion that, in general, this is not an appropriate case for leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the costs of the application of the first opponent. The second opponent does not seek costs and therefore is to bear its own costs of the application. [Mr Downes QC applied for a stay of the Orders of Giles J pending application to the High Court of Australia for leave to appeal]. In this matter an application has been made for this Court to stay the effect of the order made by Giles J in his judgment of 5 July 1993, or that portion of it which orders that the proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The application is made by Mr Downes QC on behalf of the applicant upon the basis that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, notwithstanding the provisions of the New South Wales Cross-vesting legislation. That application for leave to appeal may be made to it and, if it is, then the matter should be appropriately stayed until that matter is disposed of. The application is made, of course, against the background of what the High Court has said in recent times as to the grant of a stay and, as a matter of convenience, the grant of the stay by this Court. In all the circumstances of this case, it is the opinion of the court that it is not appropriate for this Court to grant a stay. If application is to be made for leave to appeal and the stay is sought, the opinion of the court is that, in the circumstances of this case, the application for such a stay should be made to the High Court itself and that this Court should not intrude in that regard. The application is therefore refused. The court's orders are as have been announced. Orders accordingly.