AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS v BALTINOS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL COLE JA 28 August 1995 [1995] NSWCA 28 Cole JA. This is an application by way of notice of motion brought by Australian Consolidated Press Ltd, the appellant, seeking an order that judgment given in favour of the respondent, be stayed. The judgment appealed from is that of Sully J delivered on 21 July 1995 in a defamation action which the respondent had brought against Australian Consolidated Press Ltd The trial went a long time. His Honour found that there were a number of imputations established. Relevantly his Honour found that the imputations established included that the plaintiff forced his wife and two children out of their home, that the plaintiff ddeceived his first wife in respect of the sale of the home in Carlingford and that the plaintiff abandoned his first wife leaving her destitute while he lived in luxury. His Honour found at page 80 that he was not satisfied those three imputations related in the relevant statutory sense to matters of public interest. It is primarily from those matters that the appellant wishes to proceed with the appeal. In the result, having found those imputations established and that they did not relate to matters of public interest, his Honour awarded judgment in the sum of $17,400 as appears from page 104 of his judgment. In my view this is not an appropriate matter in which a stay should be granted. The respondent is prima facie entitled to have the benefit of the trial Judge's considered judgment which resulted in the comparatively small verdict to which T have referred. It is said in support of the application that the respondent is impecunious and the appellant may not if successful on appeal recover the sums which otherwise would be paid by way of damages. That may well be true but that is not in itself a reason for granting a stay, particularly if, as I have been informed from the Bar Table, impecuniosity is a consequence of the alleged defamation and the subsequent litigation in that respect. Second, it is put that there are arguable grounds of appeal. Whether that be so or not is not for me to determine. Even assuming that to be so that does not in my view constitute a sufficient ground for granting a stay. In those circumstances the notice of motion is dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.