New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Guardian Co-operative Housing Society v Pritchard [2002] NSWSC 134 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11733/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 18 February 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 February 2002 PARTIES : Guardian Co-operative Housing Society v Keith Arthur Pritchard JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J at 1 COUNSEL : In person (Applicant/Defendant) No appearance (Respondent/Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Cichero McLean & Menzies (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : EJECTMENT - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION - LIMITED RELIEF DECISION : STAY GRANTED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION MICHAEL GROVE J Monday 18 February 2002 11733/00 - GUARDIAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY v KEITH ARTHUR PRITCHARD JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: There is presently before the Court Mr Keith Arthur Pritchard, an applicant in person, who has arranged for there to be put before the Court a file relating to an action for recovery of possession of land in respect of which Mr Pritchard and his wife were mortgagors. The file shows that in the early stages of litigation there were a number of assertions by Mr Pritchard, in particular, about the right of the plaintiff to possession but from what he has said today, I gather that those matters have now been put to one side. 2 What has provoked the present attendance by Mr Pritchard is the service of a notice to vacate operable from tomorrow and served pursuant to a writ of possession issued from the Court on 15 January last. Mr Pritchard tells me that it was served some time last week. Nevertheless, he has come to Court today, that is the day before the notice to vacate is to operate, and sought to file a notice of motion seeking that the execution be stayed and supporting it by an affidavit setting out his impecunious situation and the various illnesses of himself and his wife and the condition of his daughter. 3 When Mr Pritchard first came into Court I enquired as to whether he had contacted the solicitors for the plaintiff and I requested that he do so by telephone. Mr Pritchard tells me that he thought he should have some evidence of contacting them so he tells me that he simply sent the notice of motion by facsimile transmission to the solicitors for the plaintiff. Unsurprisingly, no representative of the plaintiff has yet arrived at Court. I have considerable reservations about the bona fides of Mr Pritchard in bringing this to the attention of the solicitors for the plaintiff. 4 I am unwilling to leave matters in abeyance for any considerable length of time until the plaintiff has had a chance to state its position. The defendants obviously remain in possession of the premises. I have no idea as to what the situation is as to payments under the mortgage, or of an occupation fee or the like. Mr Pritchard simply asserts and re-asserts that he has nowhere else to go. 5 Whilst I am sympathetic with his plight, he has had a considerable amount of time in which to contemplate the necessity for making arrangements in that regard. Assuming that what he has told me is correct, it can be anticipated that there ought be some response from the solicitors for the plaintiff once they are given the proper notice and proper opportunity to respond. 6 In those circumstances, with a considerable amount of doubt as to whether I am doing the correct thing, I propose to stay the execution for one week and during which time I direct the defendant, Keith Arthur Pritchard, to inform the solicitors for the plaintiff of the order that I have made and the circumstance that the matter is listed for hearing in the duty list on Monday next. 7 I make the following orders: 1. I stay execution on the writ of possession issued herein until 4 p.m., Monday next, 25 February. 2. I direct the defendant, Keith Arthur Pritchard, to notify the solicitors for the plaintiff in writing of the adjournment of this matter, that is to say, this notice of motion, until Monday next, 25 February at 10 am. ********** Last Modified: 03/06/2002 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.