Daily Construction: Thursday, 25 February 2016
For the best view, please download images or click here
AR Conolly Company Lawyers.
A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.

Daily Construction

Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd v Oakley Thompson & Co Pty Ltd (VSCA) - stay - security for costs - application for stay refused - application for security for costs granted

Dear Subscriber

1. Today we have the first session on Marketing for Law firms by Rob Knowsely in discussion with Louise Blase.

2. It’s a great session.

3. For Benchmark CLE subscribers we have prepared notes which we will forward to them at their request.

4. Also for Benchmark CLE subscribers at their request we will forward them an advice notice evidencing when they accessed this production.

5. We also have a series of questions for Benchmark CLE subscribers which we will send to them at their request.

6. You should watch on Wi-Fi to avoid excess data usage charges.

7. We will be in the next few days publishing some productions which are exclusively for Benchmark CLE subscribers.

Warm regards
Alan Conolly for Benchmark

ARC signature.
Benchmark Television
Click here to watch the video
Marketing in Law Firms (Part 1)
Rob Knowsley presents in discussion with Louise Blase on marketing for law firms based on 40 years experience - gold.
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd v Oakley Thompson & Co Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 19
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Tate & Osborne JJA
Stay - security for costs - applicant sought to stay orders pending determination of application for leave to appeal and proposed appeal - respondent sought that applicant provide security for costs of proposed appeal under r64.38(2) Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) or s1335(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - prejudice - whether there were special circumstances due to applicant’s lack of resources - held: stay application was premised on risk which was hypothetical and which Court did not accept had probable substance - there was risk of prejudice to respondent if stay granted - stay refused.