Galbraith v Pacific Link Housing [2015] NSWSC 1135

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Galbraith v Pacific Link Housing [2015] NSWSC 1135 Hearing dates: 3 August 2015 Decision date: 03 August 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: (1) The execution of any writ for possession by the NSW Sheriff with regard to X XXXX XXXX, Green Point NSW 2251 is stayed until 10.30 am Tuesday 4 August 2015. (2) The matter is adjourned for hearing on Tuesday 4 August 2015 at 10 am in Court 10E, part heard before me. Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – possession of land – application to stay execution of writ for possession – potential eviction of disabled person from publicly provided housing – execution of writ for possession stayed Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Karen-Anne Galbraith (Plaintiff) Pacific Link Housing (Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: N Burgess (Carer of Plaintiff) No appearance (Defendant) File Number(s): 2015/155921

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. This matter came into my list as an urgent matter late on the afternoon of 3 August 2015. I granted Ms Burgess, who is the carer of the applicant, leave to appear. The matter began ex parte. 2. Ms Burgess explained that some steps had been taken to try to inform Pacific Link Housing that the matter had been placed before me as Duty Judge seeking, in effect, a stay of execution of a writ for possession, which is in the process of being delivered to the Office of New South Wales Sheriff. 3. The matter was adjourned so that my Associate could see whether contact could be made either with an officer of Pacific Link Housing, or their solicitors, or their barrister. One was able to see from the court file that there had been legal professionals involved in the past. My Associate was successful in speaking to Mr Gavin, who I understand to be the CEO of the respondent. 4. He informed her by telephone that he opposes any stay of the execution of the writ. As far as he was concerned, there should be no such order made. In terms of whether the matter should proceed ex parte or not (that is without him present), and whether it should proceed immediately or whether it should proceed later this evening, his preference was that the matter should be stood over for hearing at 10 am tomorrow morning before me. 5. Earlier I had specified to Ms Burgess my profound reluctance to hear any matter ex parte, especially a matter such as this with a longstanding history. When the matter resumed, Ms Burgess expressed herself to be content with two orders, the first being the matter to stand over for hearing to 10 am tomorrow, and the second being that the writ for possession be stayed by me (contrary to the position of Mr Gavin) until 10.30 tomorrow morning. 6. I think, in all of the circumstances of this matter - which my preliminary reading shows involves the potential eviction of a disabled lady from public housing or at least publicly provided housing along with her two children and her belongings - it is appropriate for me to make those two orders. 7. I also respectfully suggested to Ms Burgess that it could be worthwhile for her to do her utmost to have an unpaid lawyer here tomorrow, and I respectfully provided some suggestions of places where she might be able to get some urgent help. 8. Finally, I respectfully made it clear to Ms Burgess that the fact that I am prepared to stay the execution of any writ until 10.30 am tomorrow (that is, a little over 12 hours) should not be taken by her or by Ms Galbraith as the slightest guarantee, or even an indication, that I would be prepared to extend the stay for any period beyond that time. 9. For those reasons then I make the following orders: 1. The execution of any writ for possession by the NSW Sheriff with regard to X XXXX XXXX, Green Point NSW 2251 is stayed until 10.30 am Tuesday 4 August 2015. 2. The matter is adjourned for hearing on Tuesday 4 August 2015 at 10 am in Court 10E, part heard before me.

********** 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. Decision last updated: 14 August 2015