The mere prospect that a plaintiff will spend part of a damages award on living expenses pending appeal does not constitute a real risk that the appellant will not be substantially restored to its former position, and does not amount to special or exceptional circumstances justifying a stay. Proposed undertakings to continue weekly payments and pay penalty interest go to the balance of convenience, not to establishing the required special circumstances. Where a plaintiff has modest living needs (inferred from reliance on WorkCover payments), a 'no win/no fee' costs arrangement, and evidence that any drawdown would be restored by resumed statutory payments, there is no basis for a stay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.