Farkas v Ping; Wang v Farkas [2013] NSWCA 440

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Farkas v Ping; Wang v Farkas [2013] NSWCA 440 Hearing dates: 9/12/2013 and 12/12/2013 Decision date: 12 December 2013 Before: Leeming JA Decision: (1) Note the acceptance of the undertaking to the Court proffered by Mr Wang on behalf of him and wife in the terms of paragraph 3 of MFI 1: In the event that: (i) Mr Farkas has removed the writ over all applicants' properties, and (ii) Judgment continues to be reserved from the Court of Appeal at the end of February 2014, then the applicants will not oppose Mr Farkas' application to put in place a new form of security, either a bank guarantee or cash term deposit, commencing on 1 April 2014 with the time of lodgement and terms of the security to be determined as is appropriate by the Court at the time, and in the same amount as the existing guarantee. (2) Note that the original ANZ bank guarantee in the amount of $411,813 remains lodged with the Registrar of the Court of Appeal supporting the interlocutory regime originally made on 9 September 2013 and modified by me. (3) Confirm that the stay of execution of the writ reflected in order 3 made on 9 September 2013 remains in place. (4) To the extent necessary, stay the execution by Mr Farkas of the order challenged by the proceedings in this Court, namely the order made on 20 May 2011 by the District Court of NSW, until further order. (5) Direct that Mr Farkas take all necessary steps to remove the registration of the writ on all properties of Mr Wang and his wife within seven days. (6) Grant both parties liberty to apply on two days' notice. In the event that liberty to apply in the vacation is sought, then that liberty should be exercised in the third week of January when I am sitting. (7) Otherwise dismiss the respondent's amended notice of motion dated 11 December 2013 and the applicants' notice of motion filed 10 December 2013. (8) No order as to costs. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - stay pending appeal - interpretation of effect of interlocutory orders Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Evidence Act 1995 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Gu Y Ping (first applicant) James Wang (second applicant) George Farkas (respondent) Representation: Counsel: First applicant in person for self and wife Respondent in person File Number(s): 2013/22988 Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 9101 Date of Decision: 2011-05-20 00:00:00 Before: North J File Number(s): 2006/16085; 2006/16064