NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Foundas v Arambatzis (No 6) [2024] NSWCA 231 Hearing dates: 17 September 2024 Date of orders: 17 September 2024 Decision date: 26 September 2024 Before: Ward P; White JA; Kirk JA Decision: Notice of motion filed 20 May 2024 by Cassiani Foundas and Bill Foundas for a stay of execution of the writ of possession in relation to the property in Magee Street, Ashcroft is dismissed with costs. Catchwords: JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — Enforcement — Application for stay of writ of possession — Where execution of writ previously stayed based on evidence later found to be a forgery — Where concurrent hearing of application for leave to appeal and substantive appeal was stayed until determination of criminal proceedings against first applicant relating to the forged evidence — Whether writ of possession ought be stayed pending determination of appeal — No reasonable arguable grounds for appeal — Stay least likely to lead to injustice when all relevant factors balanced — Application rejected and notice of motion dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 317(c) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 85 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.15, 36.16 Cases Cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (Receivers Appointed) (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Arambatzis v Foundas (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 125 Arambatzis v Foundas (No 3) [2021] NSWCA 189 Arambatzis v Foundas [2024] NSWSC 400 Arambatzis v Foundas; Foundas v Wengel [2021] NSWCA 78 Bobolas v Waverley Council [2014] NSWCA 131 Foundas v Arambatzis [2020] NSWCA 47 Foundas v Arambatzis (No 4) [2020] NSWCA 100 Foundas v Arambatzis (No 5) [2022] NSWCA 113 Foundas v Arambatzis (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1513 Foundas v Arambatzis (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 1648 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 Kable v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 243 Vaughan v Dawson [2008] NSWCA 169 Yeshiva Synagogue Inc v Karimbla Properties (No10) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 331 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cassiani Foundas (First Applicant) Bill Foundas (Second Applicant) Peter Arambatzis (First Respondent) Sean Magnus Wengel (Second Respondent) Robert William Whitton (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: First Applicant (Self-represented) Second Applicant (Self-represented) D Barlin / T Harris-Roxas (First Respondent) S Chen (Second and Third Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate