New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd; Lewis v Lamb [2005] NSWSC 567 HEARING DATE(S) : 7 June 2005 JUDGMENT DATE : 7 June 2005 Equity JURISDICTION : Common Law JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J DECISION : Stay of judgment in Common Law proceedings further extended. CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [516] - Judgments and orders - Enforcement of judgments and orders - Execution against property - Warrants of seizure and sale or writ of fieri facias - Practice - Other cases - New South Wales - Stay of execution - Judgment registered under Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) - Whether stay of judgment should be extended. CASES CITED : Lewis v Lamb [2004] NSWSC 322 3081/97 Peter Lawrence Lewis (P) Lamru Pty Ltd (Applicant) Kation Pty Ltd (Respondent) Brian Raymond Silvia (Liquidator) 1750/02 Lamru Pty Limited (P) PARTIES : Kation Pty Limited (D1) Peter Lawrence Lewis (D2) Mark Lewis (D3) Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq) (D4) 10911/04 Peter Lawrence Lewis (P) Russell William Lamb (D) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3081/97; 1750/02; 10911/04 N A Cotman SC and J T Johnson (P L Lewis & Kation P/L) COUNSEL : S J Motbey (Lamru P/L & R W Lamb) V R W Gray (Liquidator & Nortex P/L) Kemp Strang (P L Lewis & Kation P/L) Lyons & Lyons (Lamru P/L & R W Lamb) SOLICITORS : Abbott Tout (Liquidator & Nortex P/L) LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION AND COMMON LAW DIVISION HAMILTON J TUESDAY, 7 JUNE 2005 3081/97 PETER LAWRENCE LEWIS v NORTEX PTY LTD (In Liq) 1750/02 LAMRU PTY LIMITED v KATION PTY LIMITED & ORS 10911/04 PETER LAWRENCE LEWIS v RUSSELL WILLIAM LAMB JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Mr Cotman, of Senior Counsel for the Lewis interests, has put to me that the justification for the stay in the common law matter (see Lewis v Lamb [2004] NSWSC 322) is now evaporated because it is now plain that Lamru will not receive any sum of money through the mechanism of substantive orders made in its favour as a result of the proceedings. However, that ignores the question of costs orders. 2 Mr Cotman says that because of the multifarious claims which went each way, Lamru should equally be regarded as not likely to receive any substantial award in its favour under a costs order. To me that is not apparent. In saying that, it should not be thought that I have made or am making some prejudgment of how the costs application will go. I can only say that it seems to me at least a possibility that a substantive costs order in Lamru's favour may eventuate, conceding that that will require the sorting out of complex and difficult countervailing issues when costs come to be argued. 3 For those reasons, in my view the appropriate course is that existing stays should continue up to and including 5 August 2005. ********** 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.