SOGAL v BATES SOGAL v ROSENBERG SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CLARKE JA 11 July 1988 [1988] NSWCA 138 Clarke JA (Motions) This is an application by a respondent to an appeal from his Honour Judge Moore. The first ground of the application is that the appeal be struck out for want of prosecution. In view of recent developments that particular application is not now pressed. What the respondent claims in place of that order is that the hearing of the proceedings be expedited. The accident out of which the claim arose happened in April 1982. The matter was heard by his Honour Judge Moore on 26 and 27 August 1985, and on 4 April 1986 his Honour directed that judgment be entered in favour of the respondent in a sum which was then erroneously said to be $40,500. However, reasons for judgment were not handed down until 9 February 1988. In those reasons there was a correction so that the final judgment should have been $36,279.07. In the event no one has taken the trouble to correct the formal judgment filed in the District Court. In view of that history of delay with its obvious consequence of holding up the hearing of the appeal and keeping the respondent out of any monies to which he may be entitled, I think it appropriate that an order be made expediting the hearing of the appeal. Accordingly I grant an order in the nature of a B expedition so that the matter is to be heard if possible in September or October. The respondent has also sought an order varying a stay order granted by Judge Moore on 4 April 1986. The effect of the precise order of his Honour was to stay execution on the sum of $20,500 after the period of 28 days during which an unconditional stay was to operate. Accordingly there has been no stay in respect of the balance of the judgment for a long time. The solicitors for the respondent have been endeavouring to extract the difference from one or other of the appellants, but they apparently have each suggested that the obligation to pay was the responsibility of the other. In these circumstances it seems to me just to order that the stay as to $20,500 only continue upon the basis that each of the appellants pays $7,000 to the respondent within fourteen days. The intention is that the respondent be paid in all $14,000. I have directed each of them to pay half in an endeavour to ensure that there is no further argument between them as to who is responsible. I also order written submissions. MR FAGAN: I was going to suggest an appropriate order would be that costs be costs in the appeal. CLARKE JA: Why was not any money paid? MR BATEMAN: That is not within my knowledge. CLARKE JA: Did you want to say anything, Mr. Laughton. MR LAUGHTON: No, your Honour. CLARKE JA: The costs of this motion will be costs in the appeal.