Arambatzis v Foundas (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 125

Arambatzis v Foundas (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 125

The stay was extended for one month because earlier evidence, if authentic, raised a serious question affecting the basis on which Mrs Foundas' defence to the s 66G application had been rejected, and because the first pro bono referral had not been effectively progressed in circumstances where counsel may not have had access to the 1 March 2021 reasons. Those circumstances constituted sufficient special reasons for a second pro bono referral, but any further extension would require very prompt action with some prospects of success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Application for Further Stay of Execution of Writ for Possession and Second Pro Bono Referral in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Stay of execution further extended; second pro bono referral made; proceedings adjourned.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution of Writ for Possession' 'pro Bono Referral' 'unrepresented Litigant' 'fresh Evidence' 'conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 66 G']
['civil Procedure' 'judgments and Orders' 'property Law'] ['stay of Execution of Writ for Possession' 'pro Bono Referral' 'unrepresented Litigant' 'fresh Evidence' 'conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 66 G']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Application for Further Stay of Execution of Writ for Possession and Second Pro Bono Referral in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether execution of the writ for possession issued under the order made on 7 January 2021 should be further stayed.' 'Whether special reasons existed under UCPR, r 7.36(2A), to make a second referral for pro bono legal assistance.' "Whether issues concerning the subject property's sewer were germane to the question of a stay." "Whether the document produced to the Court was the original document in Mrs Foundas' possession."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was extended for one month because earlier evidence, if authentic, raised a serious question affecting the basis on which Mrs Foundas' defence to the s 66G application had been rejected, and because the first pro bono referral had not been effectively progressed in circumstances where counsel may not have had access to the 1 March 2021 reasons. Those circumstances constituted sufficient special reasons for a second pro bono referral, but any further extension would require very prompt action with some prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Stay of execution further extended; second pro bono referral made; proceedings adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Execution of the writ for possession issued under the order made on 7 January 2021 be further stayed until 6 July 2021 or earlier further order.' 'Pursuant to UCPR, r 7.36, the Court refers Mrs Foundas to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel for legal assistance generally in...