TCN CHANNEL 9 PTY LIMITED v ANTONIADIS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER JA 19 May 1997 [1997] NSWCA 306 Meagher JA. In this matter, originally Mrs Antoniadis sued TCN Channel 9 Pty Limited in an action for defamation which has a chequered history. The main allegation she made was that Channel 9, without any proper justification, accused her of knowingly and for profit, assisting to arrange and perform marriages as part of an illegal immigration racket involving Asian immigrants going through sham marriages. This defamation case has had an even more extraordinarily convoluted history than most defamation cases. There were several interlocutory applications to the Supreme Court. Two aborted trials and one final trial. She ended with a verdict given by the jurors in her favour of approximately $400,000. Counterbalancing this on the other hand isthat she incurred an extraordinarily large bill for costs. The costs, as between solicitor and client, were at least $400,000. The costs between party and party which Channel 9 will have to pay her, an amount which one does not yet know but one could anticipate would be not much less than that. Both parties have put on notices of motion seeking expedition and I have already made an order that the matter be expedited. In addition Channel 9 Pty Limited seeks an order that the judgments in the proceedings before Levine J in the court below be stayed pending final disposition of the appeal. The grounds of appeal by Channel 9 are extremely numerous and I shall not pursue each of the points which have been raised. However, it seems to me that in the present case, one should pay careful regard to the reasons of the trial judge, Levine J, on the application for a stay of proceedings, pending appeal which his Honour gave shortly after the verdict had been announced. I must say after hearing everything that has been said by Mr McClintock on behalf of Channel 9 and Mr Rares on behalf of Mrs Antoniadis, I can see nothing wrong with what his Honour said. Broadly speaking, his Honour refused applications for a stay. I think the present application for a stay ought to be refused roughly on the same basis. There are several reasons which lead me to this conclusion. One is that after the first aborted trial, Channel 9 rejected an offer of compromise of $5,000, in those circumstances one can but think that if a defendant takes that attitude which it is entitled to, it must put up with the consequence that a much larger judgement will be awarded against it. But in addition to that it seems to me that the proper rule to apply is the rule of law Staughton LJ in Linotype-Hell Finance Limited v Baker (1992) 4 All ER 887 which is Honour said: It seems to me that if a defendant can say that without a stay of execution he will be ruined and he had an appeal with some prospect of success, that is a legitimate ground for granting a stay of execution. Applying that rule to the present circumstances, it seems to me that Channel 9 has certainly made out a case that has some prospect of success. It did not even try to make out a case that without a stay of execution it would be ruined and clearly it would not be. That being so, I see not reason for disturbing the orders 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS made by Levine J. In my view, the appropriate order to make and I shall make it is that on Channel 9's notice of motion that the motion be dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.