A party seeking a stay of a payment-out order arising under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 1999 (NSW) need not demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances'; the correct standard is that a stay is 'less readily available'. Where moneys are already held in court, the absence of evidence of prejudice to the respondent, combined with a real and non-negligible risk of prejudice to the applicant and a short proposed duration of the stay, may be sufficient to warrant a stay. The court left open whether the 'less readily available' standard applies where the contractor (rather than the developer) is the party seeking the stay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.