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. It is said that since his Honour's judgment there has been conflict between a number of members of the 12th defendant and that this conflict will not be resolved or cannot be resolved until the appeal has been heard and determined. Whether this is so or not I am unable to say for the evidence does not justify the conclusion that there has been this conflict of which counsel speaks. No doubt, there was a measure of conflict following the resolutions declared by his Honour to be invalid and there has been conflict ever since but there is no indication that the judgment itself led to any greater degree of internal conflict and, frankly, I see no compelling reason on the evidence to bring the hearing of the appeal forward. I would add only this: If there are difficulties in running the 12th defendant then, as it seems to me, an extraordinary general meeting ought to be called and appropriate resolutions put before it in order to get the administration of the organisation once again on a sound basis. This, as it seems to me, would be a democratic way to handle the matter and in any event notwithstanding what happens in the appeal there remains a strong possibility that at some stage the memberswill wish to vote on the various matters which were the subject of the 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS resolutions which were in dispute. I dismiss applications | and 2 with costs. I stand application 3 over until 19 October 1992. Orders accordingly.