The appellants appealed an order of the motions judge which found that a previous order was not for the payment of money and therefore did not attract an automatic stay pending appeal under Rule 63.01.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, distinguishing prior case law on the basis that the holder of the funds was not an independent third party and there was a dispute concerning the debt.
The Court concluded the order practically required the payment of money between the parties and directed that the order be stayed pending appeal.
