- Unreported Judgment
COURT OF APPEAL
Appeal No 10779 of 2006
ROYALIN MARGARET DENNINGApplicant
JET DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
ACN 107 913 762First Respondent
FERNVALE PROJECTS PTY LTD
ACN 119 408 767Second Respondent
MR A M DAUBNEY SC, with him MR P J McCAFFERTY (instructed by Morgan Conley Solicitors) for the applicant
MR J W PEDEN (instructed by Flower & Hart) for the respondents
WILLIAMS JA: The applicant has not demonstrated that there is any serious or substantive question of law to be raised on the special leave application.
The decision of this Court involved the construction of clauses in a contract which were limited to the contract in question. Any stay would, on the material, cause significant inconvenience and possible significant loss to the respondents. The respondents' development is at risk if there is any substantial delay. Any undertaking as to damages would not be sufficient protection to the respondents.
In my view the appropriate test for a stay pending an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court is to be found in Jennings Constructions Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681 and J v L & A Services Pty Ltd  2 QdR 380. Applying that test, the application for a stay should be refused with costs.
KEANE JA: I agree.
WILLIAMS JA: That is the order of the Court.
- Published Case Name:
Denning v Jet Development Pty Ltd & Anor
- Shortened Case Name:
Denning v Jet Development Pty Ltd
 QCA 63
Williams JA, Keane JA
07 Mar 2007
No Litigation History