Denning v Jet Development Pty Ltd
[2007] QCA 63
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)
- Denning v Jet Development Pty Ltd[2007] QCA 63
- Add to List
Denning v Jet Development Pty Ltd[2007] QCA 63
Denning v Jet Development Pty Ltd[2007] QCA 63
COURT OF APPEAL
WILLIAMS JA
KEANE JA
Appeal No 10779 of 2006
ROYALIN MARGARET DENNINGApplicant
and
JET DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
ACN 107 913 762First Respondent
and
FERNVALE PROJECTS PTY LTD
ACN 119 408 767Second Respondent
BRISBANE
DATE 07/03/2007
JUDGMENT
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 [1993] 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.