Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd; Lewis v Lamb

[2005] NSWSC 567

CITATION:	Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd; Lewis v Lamb [2005] NSWSC 567
HEARING DATE(S):	7 June 2005
JUDGMENT DATE :	7 June 2005
JURISDICTION:	Equity Common Law
JUDGMENT OF:	Hamilton J
DECISION:	Stay of judgment in Common Law proceedings further extended.

CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE [516] - Judgments and orders - Enforcement of judgments and orders - Execution against property - Warrants of seizure and sale or writ of fieri facias - Practice - Other cases - New South Wales - Stay of execution - Judgment registered under Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) - Whether stay of judgment should be extended.
CASES CITED:	Lewis v Lamb [2004] NSWSC 322
PARTIES:	3081/97 Peter Lawrence Lewis (P) Lamru Pty Ltd (Applicant) Kation Pty Ltd (Respondent) Brian Raymond Silvia (Liquidator) 1750/02 Lamru Pty Limited (P) Kation Pty Limited (D1) Peter Lawrence Lewis (D2) Mark Lewis (D3) Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq) (D4) 10911/04 Peter Lawrence Lewis (P) Russell William Lamb (D)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 3081/97; 1750/02; 10911/04
COUNSEL:	N A Cotman SC and J T Johnson (P L Lewis & Kation P/L) S J Motbey (Lamru P/L & R W Lamb) V R W Gray (Liquidator & Nortex P/L)
SOLICITORS:	Kemp Strang (P L Lewis & Kation P/L) Lyons & Lyons (Lamru P/L & R W Lamb) Abbott Tout (Liquidator & Nortex P/L)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION AND
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HAMILTON J

TUESDAY, 7 JUNE 2005

3081/97 PETER LAWRENCE LEWIS v NORTEX PTY LTD (In Liq)
1750/02 LAMRU PTY LIMITED v KATION PTY LIMITED & ORS
10911/04 PETER LAWRENCE LEWIS v RUSSELL WILLIAM LAMB

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Mr Cotman, of Senior Counsel for the Lewis interests, has put to me that the justification for the stay in the common law matter (see Lewis v Lamb [2004] NSWSC 322) is now evaporated because it is now plain that Lamru will not receive any sum of money through the mechanism of substantive orders made in its favour as a result of the proceedings. However, that ignores the question of costs orders.

2 Mr Cotman says that because of the multifarious claims which went each way, Lamru should equally be regarded as not likely to receive any substantial award in its favour under a costs order. To me that is not apparent. In saying that, it should not be thought that I have made or am making some prejudgment of how the costs application will go. I can only say that it seems to me at least a possibility that a substantive costs order in Lamru's favour may eventuate, conceding that that will require the sorting out of complex and difficult countervailing issues when costs come to be argued.

3 For those reasons, in my view the appropriate course is that existing stays should continue up to and including 5 August 2005.

**********