Roufas v Action Insulations Engineers P/L & Ors (Ruling) [2005] NSWDDT 40

Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales

CITATION : Roufas v Action Insulations Engineers P/L & Ors (Ruling) [2005] NSWDDT 40

Anthony Roufas (Plaintiff) Action Insulations Engineers P/L (1st Def.) bernard Hastie (Australia) P/L (2nd Def) PARTIES : Amaca P/L (Formerley James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) (3rd Def) Wallaby Grip Ltd (4th Def) Wallaby Grip (BAE) P/L (5th Def)

MATTER NUMBER(S) : 164/2004

JUDGMENT OF: Johns J at 1

:-

DATES OF HEARING: 15/07/05

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 07/15/2005

FOR PLAINTIFF: D E Letcher QC instructed by Turner Freeman LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR DEFENDANT: W S Strathdee instructed by Phillips Fox appeared for the 3rd Def.

JUDGMENT: JOHNS J 1.I have before me an application by the third, fourth and fifth defendants, for a stay of proceedings in respect of the amount assessed for economic loss The defendants require a limited period to allow a reasonable opportunity to assess the prospects of appeal. An appeal from the Tribunal must be based on a matter of law or wrongful admission of the evidence.

2. At this point of time, the question of whether or not in the defendants view an error of law has been made has not been considered. In my view the question of the amount is question of fact and is a matter for the trial judge.

3. There is no automatic right to a stay, and indeed, the general rule is as indicated, that prima facie the judgment appealed from is correct and the Court should not deprive the party of the fruits of his success. However, the right to a stay is incidental to the right of appeal. It is appropriate to apply to the trial judge.