NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Young v King (No 10) [2016] NSWLEC 70 Hearing dates: 18 May 2016 Date of orders: 10 June 2016 Decision date: 10 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Sheahan J Decision: Two stay applications are dismissed with costs. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Stays of Proceedings – principles to apply – outstanding questions of costs – personal costs orders – substantive decisions presently under appeal – stays refused – costs. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Legal Profession Act 1987 Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Najem (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 130 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Candler v Crane Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164 Degiorgio v Dunn (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 3 Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd [2002] NSWCA 383; 55 NSWLR 737 Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 153; 63 NSWLR 300 Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 674; (2000) 102 FCR 155 Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27; [2003] 1 AC 120 New South Wales Bar Association v Murphy [2002] NSWCA 138; (2002) 55 NSWLR 23 Patrick v Capital Finance Corp (Australasia) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1249 Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Antoniadis [No 2] [1999] NSWCA 104; 48 NSWLR 381 Vaughan v Dawson [2008] NSWCA 169 Young v Hones (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 499 Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Limited [2016] FCCA 989 Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236 Young v King (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 111 Young v King (No 8) [2015] NSWLEC 187 Young v King (No 9) [2016] NSWLEC 4 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Margo Young (Applicant) Brendan King (First respondent) Kristina King (Second respondent) Jason Hones (Third respondent) Hones Lawyers (Fourth respondent) Ian Hemmings (Fifth respondent) Stephen Perrens (Sixth respondent) Hughes Trueman Pty Limited (Seventh respondent) Warwick Davies (Eighth respondent) Stephen Noel Griffiths (Ninth respondent) Robert Charles Springett (Tenth respondent) Michael Brearley (Eleventh respondent) Ross Fraser (Twelfth respondent) Tony Tuxworth (Thirteenth respondent) Copland Lethbridge (Fourteenth respondent) Bee & Lethbridge Pty Limited (Fifteenth respondent) Geoff Goodyer (Sixteenth respondent) Victor Schubert (Seventeenth respondent) Warringah Shire Council (Eighteenth respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr R Newell, solicitor (Applicant) Mr M Wright, barrister (First & second respondents) No Appearance (Third & fourth respondents) Ms S Reid, solicitor (Fifth and seventeenth respondents) Mr S Gray, barrister (Sixth & seventh respondents) Mr T Faulkner, SC (Eighth respondent) No Appearance (Ninth respondent) No Appearance (Tenth respondent) Mr B Lim, barrister (Eleventh, fourteenth, fifteenth & sixteenth respondents) Ms J Reid, barrister (Twelfth respondent) Ms T Mandic, solicitor (Thirteenth respondent) No Appearance (Eighteenth respondent) Mr D Lloyd, barrister (for Leonardo Muriniti and L C Muriniti & Associates) Mr N Andrew, solicitor (for Robert Newell as a barrister)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate