Lawteal Pty. Limited v Ofo; 10 Conway Avenue, Rose Bay Pty. Limited v Ofo

Case [2006] NSWSC 384
CITATION: LAWTEAL PTY. LIMITED v. OFO; 10 CONWAY AVENUE, ROSE BAY PTY. LIMITED v. OFO [2006] NSWSC 384
HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 1 December 2005
JURISDICTION: Common Law
JUDGMENT OF: Hall J at 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 05/04/2006
DECISION: (a) The defendant's notice of motion dated 16 November 2005 is dismissed. (b) The writ of possession is stayed until 9.00 am on Tuesday 23 May 2006. (c) I make no order as to costs. In relation to proceedings no. 10406 of 2005, 10 Conway Avenue, Rose Bay Pty. Limited v. Ofo, I grant liberty to the parties to approach the registrar to have those proceedings re-listed.
PARTIES: LAWTEAL PTY. LIMITED v. TALILOTU OFO
10 CONWAY AVENUE, ROSE BAY PTY. LIMITED v. TALILOTU OFO
FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 10118 of 2005;; No. 10406 of 2005
COUNSEL: Plaintiff: J. Doyle
Defendant: In person
SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: R.L. Kremnizer & Co.
Defendant: In person
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court (Associate Judge)
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): No. 10118 of 2005
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Malpass, As.J.
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 10/11/2005
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: LAWTEAL PTY. LIMITED v. OFO [2005] NSWSC 984


IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
POSSESSION LIST

HALL, J

THURSDAY 4 MAY 2006

No. 10118 of 2005
No. 10406 of 2005

LAWTEAL PTY. LIMITED v TALILOTU OFO
10 CONWAY AVENUE ROSE BAY PTY LIMITED v TALILOTU OFO

JUDGMENT

1 HALL, J: I today handed down reasons for judgment. That judgment, in paragraph [88], set out the orders proposed.

2 I provided the parties with the opportunity of considering the proposed orders and for that purpose stood the proceedings over to 3.00 pm today. Mr. J. Doyle of counsel appears for the plaintiff and Ms. Ofo, again, appears in person.

3 There are two matters that I wish to record concerning the proposed orders. First, my attention has been drawn to a notice of motion filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 24 March 2006 in proceedings no. 10118 of 2005, Lawteal Pty. Limited v. Ofo, in which an order was sought that the writ of possession in these proceedings issued on 30 March 2003 be extended until 29 March 2007. That notice of motion was supported by the affidavit of Nicole Stein sworn 23 March 2006. I am informed that, on that date, 24 March 2006, an order was made as sought in paragraph [1] of the notice of motion, and the writ of possession, accordingly by that order, has been continued until 29 March 2007. The notification of the record of proceedings confirms the making of that order on that date.

4 Accordingly, there is no requirement for me to make an order referred to in paragraph [84] of the judgment delivered earlier today.

5 The second matter is the confirmation of orders to be made consequent upon today’s judgment. Mr. Doyle provided to me minutes of orders which I have dated today and initialled. Those orders give effect to the judgment in the proceedings and, accordingly, in accordance with the short minutes, I make the following orders:-


      (a) That the defendant’s notice of motion dated 16 November 2005 is dismissed.

(b) The writ of possession is stayed until 9.00 am on Tuesday 23 May 2006.

(c) I make no order as to costs.

6 In relation to proceedings no. 10406 of 2005, 10 Conway Avenue, Rose Bay Pty. Limited v. Ofo, I grant liberty to the parties to approach the registrar to have those proceedings re-listed.


**********
Details
AGLC
Lawteal Pty. Limited v Ofo; 10 Conway Avenue, Rose Bay Pty. Limited v Ofo [2006] NSWSC 384
Case
[2006] NSWSC 384
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lawteal Pty. Limited v. Ofo and 10 Conway Avenue, Rose Bay Pty. Limited v. Ofo, the primary issue before the court was the enforcement of a writ of possession against the defendant, Talilotu Ofo. The plaintiffs, Lawteal Pty. Limited and 10 Conway Avenue, Rose Bay Pty. Limited, sought to execute the writ of possession to regain possession of the property in question. The defendant, Ofo, appeared in person and contested the enforcement of the writ.

The legal issues addressed by the court included the validity and enforcement of the writ of possession, the procedural correctness of the motion filed by the plaintiffs to extend the writ's duration, and the appropriate timeframe for the execution of the writ. The court also considered the implications of the earlier orders made in the proceedings and the procedural fairness in dealing with the defendant's notice of motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's notice of motion dated 16 November 2005, which sought certain reliefs not pertinent to the current proceedings. It was noted that an earlier order extending the writ of possession until 29 March 2007 had already been made, thereby rendering the current motion redundant. The writ of possession was stayed until 9:00 am on Tuesday, 23 May 2006, to allow further consideration of the defendant's position and any potential applications. The court made no order as to costs, and granted the parties the liberty to approach the registrar to have the related proceedings re-listed.

In summary, the court provided a measured approach to the enforcement of the writ of possession, ensuring procedural fairness and the proper consideration of the defendant's rights and circumstances. The final orders included the dismissal of the defendant's notice of motion, a stay on the writ of possession, and the granting of liberty to re-list related proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.