Shinna v Park

[2017] NSWSC 1622

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Shinna v Park [2017] NSWSC 1622
Hearing dates:	23 November 2017
Date of orders:	23 November 2017
Decision date:	23 November 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Order the extension of the stay of the order for possession until 5 pm on Thursday 30 November. The matter is adjourned to the duty judge's list at 10 am on that day.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – notice of motion – order seeking to stay order for writ of possession – extension of stay granted
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Mai Shiina (Plaintiff) Hyun Yee Park (First Defendant) Seog Won Yoon (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: Hans Kim Lawyer (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2017/11983
Publication restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: This is an application brought by a motion filed by the defendants, supported by an affidavit sworn by the second defendant, Mr Yoon, in which a stay of an order of possession entered on 23 October 2017 is sought to be extended, in the motion, indefinitely, but, in the affidavit, for a period of a further eight weeks.

2. The matter came into the list earlier in the week, when I refused to deal with it ex parte.

3. This morning the order pressed by Mr Yoon was a stay for a further six weeks, in circumstances where it was anticipated that negotiations about the purchase price are to be resolved and contracts exchanged, this week.

4. In those circumstances, I take the view that it might be sensible to extend the stay until next week, but that it would not be an appropriate or just exercise of the Court's discretion, to extend the stay for yet another six weeks, given the history of the proceedings thus far.

5. For the plaintiff the proposed stay was consented to on the basis that the Court would not next week grant any further extensions. I indicated that that was not an order which I could make, but that I would, in these reasons, record that I had explained to Mr Yoon that if contracts were exchanged the parties should agree to a sensible timetable for the resolution of the proceedings. If contracts were not exchanged, however, that he could not reasonably expect that the Court would grant any further extensions of the stay, given that mortgage payments are not being made, and that continued delay also simply dissipates the defendants' remaining equity in the property.

6. For those reasons I order the extension of the stay of the order for possession until 5pm on Thursday 30 November. The matter is adjourned to the duty judge's list at 10am on that day.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 November 2017