ROADSHOW ENTERTAINMENT PTY LIMITED v ACN 053 006 269 PTY LIMITED FORMERLY CEL HOME VIDEO PTY LIMITED SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA 11 September 1995 [1995] NSWCA 394 Priestley JA. Before the Court is an application for a stay of a judgment entered pursuant to reasons published by Kearney AJ on 18 August last. The sum of the judgment, according to his reasons, was to be $1,224,531.54 with interest, from the date of summons 17 May 1994. The defendant in the proceedings seeks a stay pending an appeal. It is not contended by the opponent to today's proceedings that the appeal can be argued to fall into the category of hopeless appeal. Because of that I have not made any attempt to judge the strength of the appeal. I simply deal with it on the basis that on what I have been told from the bar table, it appears it may well be arguable, and arguable I use simply as meaning, in a completely non-judgmental way, that there are arguments for it and arguments against it. There has not been any fundamental issue between the parties in relation to the stay. In circumstances such as this the Court ordinarily will grant a stay, although every case has to be looked at according to its ownfacts, upon the applicant for the stay offering proper security for the judgment until the appeal is disposed of. The claimant today did not wish to volunteer to offer security, the ground being that the financial backing available to the claimant was such that the respondent to the appeal need have no fear the judgment would not be satisfied if the appeal failed. On my quick look at the materials in support of that contention, that may well be so. However, it is difficult to predict when the appeal will be heard and even the soundest financial institutions are sometimes subject to unexpected disasters. On the other hand, the respondent to the appeal argues that on any view the money now in question should have been paid to the two companies, which his client is now in charge of, and it would be fair that the money be paid over to his client pending the hearing of the appeal. There are complications involved there which I won't recite. The simplest way it seems to me is to adhere to what is the frequent course and require the money to be paid into court, or proper security given for it. To achieve that end I think it is not necessary to say any more than that, upon the claimant providing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for the amount of the judgment, there shall be a stay of the judgment until the conclusion of the appeal proceedings, or further order. I say security to the satisfaction of the Registrar, on the basis that the Registrar habitually requires either cash or a suitable bank guarantee. It is not beyond his power to accept other security, but as I understand it, he rarely does so and only in circumstances where the other security is just as good as a bank guarantee. (After argument.)The costs in this application should be the opponent's/respondent's costs in the appeal. Orders accordingly.