GOODWIN v DUGGAN SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA 4 April 1996 [1996] NSWCA 222 Priestley JA. This is an application for a stay of the Orders made by Simos J on 15 December last, from which an appeal has been brought, and also for an Order that the hearing of the appeal be expedited. In considering whether or not a stay should be granted the factors on either side are to my mind fairly even balanced. On the basis of the material that's before me it seems to me that if the appeal is to fail then the need of the respondent to have the benefit of the proceeds which will come to her as a result of Simos J's Orders is quite severe. If the appeal were to be upheld then for the Orders of Simos J to have been carried out in the meantime would be likely to have caused hardship of various kinds to the appellant. The difficulties in this situation are to a large extent reduced by the availability of an early hearing date. The case seems to me to be one extremely suitable for expedition and I order that the hearing of the appeal be expedite and that it be fixed for hearing on 23 May 1996. The closeness of the hearing date reduced the difficulties in regard to the granting of a stay. An undertaking has been offered which safeguards the interests of the opponent respondent to a considerable extent. In view of the undertaking and of the comparatively short period before the appeal should be determined, it seems to me that the balance of convenience lies in granting a stay of Simos J's Orders until the disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the opponent has indicated opposition to the granting of a stay. In light of the availability of the early hearing date and the intimation of my views about a stay in consequence of that availability, counsel did not withdraw his opposition, but did not abandon the viewpoint of his client that no stay should be granted. He reserved his right in the event, which I do not think will happen, that the appeal did not go forward on 23 May to renew his opposition to the stay and to argue then that the stay should not be continued without that argument being prejudiced by his attitude today. It seems to me that in the unlikely event that the appeal does not proceed on 23 May, then the Court would be obliged to consider on the merits as they then appeared the question whether the stay should be continued. What had happened in the past would not be of any particular significance. The question would be what the facts were relevantly to the granting of or withholding of any further stay at that date. In regard to the hearing of the appeal there is to be an appearance before the Registrar on 12 April. With that in mind, and also with the hearing date in mind, I dispense with the rules relating to the preparation of appeal books, subject to directions to be given by the Registrar on 12 April aimed at having all necessary papers in a convenient form before the Court of Appeal on the date fixed for hearing. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS The appellant's written submissions should be filed with the Court I would suggest by 24 April, the respondent's written submissions by 8 May and any reply by the appellant by 15 May. I have stipulated that the submissions be filed in good time in order that the Court have opportunity toconsider them before the oral argument on 23 May with a view to ensuring that the hearing of the appeal will be confined to the one day of 23 May. The parties have indicated to me that the argument should be completed within the day and the directions concerning written submissions are intended to help that prediction come true. As to the stay I make the following Order: Upon the claimant by her counsel undertaking to the Court of Appeal that, pending the disposition of her appeal, she will not sell, transfer, charge, further encumber or otherwise deal with or dispose of any of the four assets listed on p 2 of annexure A to her affidavit sworn 29 March 1996 without the prior leave of the Court. I order that the Orders of Simos J of 15 December 1995 be stayed, pending determination of the appeal or until further Order. If application is to be made to the Court in connection with these Orders prior to 23 May, then the application should be made on two days" notice. I would have it in mind to make the costs of the motion costs in the appeal unless anybody wishes to argue against that. BRADFORD: I'm content with that. BURLEY: I'm content with that, your Honour. Orders accordingly.