PANGAS v NEWJUR PTY LIMITED SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA 23 October 1995 [1995] NSWCA 357 Priestley JA. In the matter of Pangas v Newjur Pty Limited & Anor, the application that is before the Court is for a stay of execution of orders of Mr Justice Santow made in 1994. There was an appeal brought by Mr Pangas against Mr Justice Santow's orders which was dismissed by this Court on 6th June this year. On 22nd June, Mr Pangas filed an application for special leave to appeal in the High Court. No date for hearing of that application appears to have been granted as yet. The High Court has required material to be filed in support of the application by a date early next month. Since this Court handed down its decision on 6th June, aspects of the matter have come before both the Family Court and the Equity Division of this Court. When the proceedings came on for hearing this morning, Mr Pangas asked for an adjournment for a fortnight. The basis of his application was that he has not been able to get the material ready for submission to his solicitor and presentation to this Court upon which his application for a stay would proceed. He said that he has been suffering from a virus and that because of that, and other proceedings connected with this matter with whichhe has been concerned, he simply has not been able to cope with the necessity to get the material ready. The application for adjournment has been opposed. Reliance has been placed on past history of this matter, some of which is within my own direct recollection having been on the bench at the time when matters were argued relating to what Mr Pangas's opponents claim was deliberate stalling tactics on his part. Iam not deciding the question of whether or not I should grant an adjournment today by reference to those matters. The primary reasons why I think I should grant an adjournment are: First, there is not before me all the material which I think should be before me in order to decide the application for the stay upon a proper basis. That may, to some extent, be Mr Pangas's fault. On the other hand, it emerged more or less incidentally in the course of discussion this morning that something very similar to a stay is presently on foot as the result of an order made, or a statement made by Mr Justice Young when an aspect of the proceedings was before him recently. Whatever the precise legal characterisation may be of whatever it was that Mr Justice Young said, it seems clear that nothing is going to happen by way of fulfilment by the Sheriff of his duties under the Court orders until the matter has been further considered by Mr Justice Young. That circumstance means that there is no immediately pressing urgency for Mr Pangas's application to be dealt with today. That being so, I think it proper to give both sides an opportunity to put before me all the material that they say is relevant to this question of the stay. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS I propose to stand the matter over until 13th November because that will give time after compliance with the High Court's requirement for the filing of material before it, for that same material and any additional materialwhich may be relevant to the stay application to be put in order for consideration by this Court. The opponent says that at least today, upon the granting of this adjournment, I should order security or make an order for costs in the opponents favour. It seems to me to be more suitable to defer both of those matters until the material that I have spoken of is complete, or complete at least to the extent that the parties choose to put before the Court. Further, if an application for security is to be proceeded with, I think a Notice of Motion specifying what security is sought should be filed in the interim. I therefore do no more today than stand over the present Notice of Motion until 13th November 1995 and reserve the question of today's costs for decision either by the Court on that day or when the Court ultimately disposes of the matter, if it is not disposed of on that day. I likewise reserve any question of security. The Court makes those orders. Orders accordingly.