Clarke v Pelenyi
[2002] QCA 81
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Clarke v Pelenyi[2002] QCA 81
- Add to List
Clarke v Pelenyi[2002] QCA 81
Clarke v Pelenyi[2002] QCA 81
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
No 2118 of 2002
JUSTINE LESLIE CLARKERespondent (Plaintiff)
and
PETER PELENYIAppellant (Defendant)
BRISBANE
DATE 15/03/2002
JUDGMENT
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant has applied for leave to appeal from a decision of a District Court Judge dismissing the applicant's appeal from the decision of a Magistrate at Beenleigh finding that the applicant was liable for a motor vehicle collision with the respondent awarding damages and costs to the respondent.
This is an application for a stay of the District Court Judge's order dismissing the appeal, pending the hearing of any appeal in this Court. The application is brought under UCPR rule 761 which provides:
1.The starting of an appeal does not stay the enforcement of the decision under appeal;
2.However, the Court of Appeal, a Judge of Appeal or the Court that made the order appealed from may order a stay of the enforcement of all or part of a decision subject to an appeal.
This Court has no power under that rule to stay an order the subject of an application for leave to appeal because until leave is granted there is no appeal. See Stone v. Copperform Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 7, CA No 11195 of 2001, 31 January 2001, QLR June 23 2001. I refuse the application at this stage. The application should, however, be adjourned to the hearing of the application for leave to appeal. If the applicant is successful in obtaining leave, the question of a stay can be considered at that time.