HARKIM v WESTWOOD LA GRANGE PLAZA LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER JA 5 August 1991 [1991] NSWCA 144 Meagher JA I find this matter a rather difficult one. The opponent, Westwood La Grange Plaza Limited, obtained on 11 April 1986 default judgment in California against the claimant, Mr Harkim, of the amount owed which is now, I am informed, possibly in the order of $400,000. Various procedural toings and froings have taken place in California since that date which I shall not detail. Suffice it to say they have the end result of being terminated in favour of the opponent, Westwood La Grange Plaza Limited. However, on 23 September 1991, there is to be a hearing of a further matter between the parties in California, that matter being in substance a challenge by Mr Harkim on what is said to be equitable grounds to the judgment which has been obtained by Westwood La Grange Plaza Limited. I have read some documents relating to this matter and cannot, of course, express any view as to the likelihood of success. I think I am enabled to express a view that the application is certainly not frivolous, whatever else it is. That leaves the situation where no-one knows what the result of the dispute between the parties will be when the matter has been heard and decided on 29 September 1991. In the meantime two things have happened. One is that a bond of $245,000, considerably over half the amount in question, has been paid by the claimant, Mr Harkim, to the opponent, Westwood La Grange Plaza Limited. The other is that Rogers J on 24 February 1989 has permitted the Californian judgment to be registered in this State and thereby to be enforced. There is an appeal on against Rogers J's judgment, but for various technical reasons, the parties have not bothered to pursue that appeal with any vigour the principal reason being that they appreciate that their fate is really being determined in California, not in New South Wales. What is present before me in these circumstances is an application that in this State execution of the Californian judgment be stayed at present. In view of the substantial nature of the challenge being made to the Californian judgment I am, on balance and with some hesitation, included to accede to the application. The order which I will make, therefore, is to stay the judgment of Rogers J until 25 November 1991 by which stage I hope the result of the Californian judgment will be known. The matter will be relisted before the court on that date. As to costs, in my view costs should be costs in the appeal. If the Californian judgment is delivered earlier than the return date I have suggested either counsel may have liberty to advance the hearing of the present matter.