HACIDE PTY LTD v COMMONWEALTH BANK [1991] NSWCA 135

HACIDE PTY LTD vy COMMONWEALTH BANK

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE JA 2 August 1991

[1991] NSWCA 135

Clarke JA This is a motion in which Mrs Poulos seeks, in effect, two differenttypes of orders: first, she seeks a stay of execution for twenty-eight days in order that her lawyers can give further consideration to an appeal. In all the circumstances of this case I do not think there are any grounds on which a stay should be granted. Secondly, she seeks an order that she be given access to the premises during the next two weeks on days to be nominated on twenty-four hours' notice for the purpose of the removal of personal belongings of her and her family.

The respondent's representative, Mr J Lanser, has pointed out that on each occasion access is given it is necessary for the Bank to have an officer at the premises to let the representatives of Hacide into possession and to supervise the premises while those persons remain in them. In these circumstances he submits twenty-four hours notice is not a reasonable period of notice within which the Bank would be required to provide the officer to supervise. On the other hand, he indicates that the Bank is prepared to be reasonable and to allow Mrs Poulos and her family to have such access as is reasonably necessary to remove possessions and furniture from the premises.

The present application has been brought on with great haste and neither party has really had enough time to gather together such evidence as they-may wish to put before the court.

In these circumstances I think that I should order that the respondent provide access between the hours of 9am and Spm tomorrow, that is, Saturday 3 August. I make that order because Mrs Poulos has said that she had made arrangements for removalists to come on the Saturday and Mr Lanser has filed an affidavit in which he indicates that the Bank made arrangements to have someone available tomorrow.