SIMS -v- SUDA LTD [No 2] [2015] WASC 180

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 180
Published:	03/06/2015
Case No:	CIV:1535/2012	Heard:	30 APRIL 2015
Coram:	PRITCHARD J	Delivered:	30/04/15
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS SUDA LTD
Catchwords:	Application to suspend or stay the enforcement of a property search and seizure order or costs order Whether special circumstances exist Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 15
Case References:	Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WASCA 113 Sims v Suda Ltd [2015] WASCA 65

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SIMS -v- SUDA LTD [No 2] [2015] WASC 180 CORAM : PRITCHARD J HEARD : 30 APRIL 2015 DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2015 PUBLISHED : 3 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1535 of 2012 BETWEEN : DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS

Plaintiff

AND

SUDA LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Application to suspend or stay the enforcement of a property search and seizure order or costs order - Whether special circumstances exist - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 15

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : Mr J R Ludlow

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : Downings Legal

Cases referred to in judgment:

Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WASCA 113
Sims v Suda Ltd [2015] WASCA 65

PRITCHARD J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 30 April 2015 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 This is an application brought by the plaintiff for an order that:

(1) The costs order of Registrar C Boyle of 12 November 2014 be stayed until extension of time to appeal be granted; and

(2) If extension of time to appeal is granted, then the costs order be stayed until the decision on appeal is made.

2 The application was made by chamber summons dated 29 April 2015, and was supported by an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on the same date. The application has been brought on urgently because the plaintiff says that the costs order referred to in the application is the subject of a property seizure order. The plaintiff has been advised by the sheriff that the property seizure order is to be executed at a settlement of a sale of a property owned by the plaintiff today, 30 April 2015. (At the hearing today, the plaintiff advised that that settlement is, in fact, due to take place tomorrow, 1 May 2015.)

3 What is referred to in the chamber summons as 'the costs order of 12 November 2014', and which is the subject of the present application for a stay or suspension, seems to have been somewhat misleading. As a result of the interchange I had with the plaintiff during the hearing, it appears that the plaintiff seeks to suspend the operation of an order made by Registrar C Boyle…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sims v Suda Ltd [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Sims v Suda Ltd [No 2] [2015] WASC 180
Case: [2015] WASC 180
Decision Date: 3 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sims v Suda Ltd [No 2] involved a dispute between Sims and Suda Ltd, where Sims sought to suspend or stay the enforcement of a property search and seizure order and a costs order previously made against Suda Ltd. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Sims argued that special circumstances existed that warranted the suspension or stay of the orders, whereas Suda Ltd opposed the application on the grounds that there were no such circumstances.

The central legal issue was whether special circumstances existed to justify the suspension or stay of the enforcement of the orders. In determining this, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law that set out the criteria for such relief. It was essential to assess the balance of convenience and the potential hardship that would result from enforcing the orders against Suda Ltd.

The court held that, after weighing the evidence and arguments presented, it was not satisfied that special circumstances existed. The court found that the orders were validly made and that there were no compelling reasons to suspend or stay their enforcement. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the orders remained in full force.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.