Shinna v Park [2017] NSWSC 1622

Shinna v Park [2017] NSWSC 1622

In the circumstances, an extension of the stay until a specified date (30 November) was appropriate, given anticipated resolution of negotiations, but any further extension was neither appropriate nor just, considering the history and financial circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mai Shiina; First Defendant: Hyun Yee Park; Second Defendant: Seog Won Yoon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Extension of stay granted; adjourned for further directions.
Legal Topics
Stay of Possession Order, Extension Application
Procedure Stay of Possession Order Extension Application

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mai Shiina

Plaintiff

Hyun Yee Park

First Defendant

Seog Won Yoon

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of a stay of an order for possession

Ratio Decidendi

In the circumstances, an extension of the stay until a specified date (30 November) was appropriate, given anticipated resolution of negotiations, but any further extension was neither appropriate nor just, considering the history and financial circumstances.

Court Disposition

Extension of stay granted; adjourned for further directions.

Orders

  • Extension of the stay of the order for possession until 5pm on Thursday 30 November 2017.
  • Matter adjourned to the duty judge's list at 10am on Thursday 30 November 2017.