SOLIMAN v MAMOUNEY [1992] NSWCA 233

SOLIMAN v MAMOUNEY SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE JA 12 October 1992

[1992] NSWCA 233

Clarke JA. There are three applications presently before the Court. An application for an order staying orders 3, 4 and 5 made by Hodgson J on 16 September 1992. An application that the hearing of the appeal be expedited and an application for an order in effect regularising the position of the parties.

It is clear to me that the situation with regard to the parties is not in a satisfactory state. There will need to be orders made to regularise this aspect of the case. However, there is no evidence which would enable me to make orders under Pt 51 r 6(2) of the Supreme Court Rules and during discussion counsel asked that this particular application be stood over for a week in order to enable him and his instructing solicitor to obtain evidence to press appropriate orders to ensure that it is only those parties who wish to be involved in the appeal who are or remain parties to that appeal.

The only orders which could be stayed are costs orders and an order that the 12th defendant give notice to the Australian Securities Commission of his Honour's declaration.

I see no reason to stay those orders. Indeed, when pressed counsel for the claimant has been unable to put before the court any sound ground why those orders should be stayed. I would add the observation that it is the 12th defendant who is required to give notice and that defendant has not appealed against the orders made and it is difficult to see why the notice should not be given forthwith. No doubt the 12th defendant could draw to the Commission's notice the existence of the appeal. Accordingly, I decline to make order | as sought.

The only matter with any substance has been the application for an expedition of the hearing of the appeal but even there the substance is more apparent than real in my opinion.