WORLD WING PROPERTY INVESTMENT COMPANY PTY LTD v BUCKNELL; WORLD WINGS PROPERTY INVESTMENT CO PTY LIMITED v J STEVENSON - MAGISTRATE MANLY LOCAL COURT [1993] NSWCA 293

WORLD WING PROPERTY INVESTMENT COMPANY PTY LTD v BUCKNELL; WORLD WINGS PROPERTY INVESTMENT CO PTY LIMITED v J STEVENSON, MAGISTRATE MANLY LOCAL COURT

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE JA 13 December 1993

[1993] NSWCA 293

Clarke JA. This is an application by World Wings Property Investments for a stay of a number of costs orders made in these long proceedings. World Wings is not represented by a lawyer but Mr Valassis, who is a Director of the company, has sought leave to appear. On previous occasions, the Court has declined leave and, yet on others, the Court has not ruled formally on the application for leave.

I have heard Mr Valassis" submissions, while reserving the question of his right to appear. Previously I have taken the view that it has been unnecessary to tule finally on Mr Valassis" right to appear in the proceedings, and I propose to adhere to that stance today.

The evidence he has put before the Court does not reveal any grounds fora stay, but he has told me that he has sought leave to appeal from the High Court, and he hopes that application will be heard sometime next year. The reason he, therefore, wishes to have a stay is in case he his successful in the application.

In that context he has also told the Court, although there is no evidence to this effect, that if he is to pay these various costs, he will be obliged to sell his house. Not only will he have to sell his house, but he will have to sell it at an undervalue because of the damage which, in his view, has been caused by the activities of his neighbours who are the opponents today.

I am unable to investigate or rule upon the issue of the damage. As I have indicated there is presently before me only a motion in respect of the costs orders made. I do not think that the fact that there is an application for leave to the High Court in the circumstances of this case provides a ground for staying the normal processes of the law, and while I have some sympathies with Mr Valassis, I am obliged to dismiss his present notice of motion with costs.