REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I am satisfied there should be a stay in this matter.  I take into account the fact that there can be a hearing relatively soon, that is on 3 March 1999.  There has already been a substantial lapse of time since the show cause notice was served in February of this year so there is, in the overall scheme of things, not a great deal of extra time taken up.  Without going to the detail, I have read the applicant’s written submissions filed on 22 December 1998.  I am satisfied they raise a number of points of substance (see Faingold v Zammit (1984) 1 FCR 87 at 91, Otter Gold Mines Ltd v Forrest (1997) 22 ACSR 713 at 716).

There remain, of course, at this stage arguable points and no more.  What Mr Hiland says in opposition may carry the day but I think sufficient has been shown to warrant a stay.  I do have regard also to the circumstance that it does not appear to be suggested that any of the conduct alleged against the applicant was of a fraudulent nature.  So I will order that the time for service of the applicant’s notice of motion is abridged to the day before the date fixed for the motion.

I will direct further affidavits by the applicant by 15 January; respondent’s affidavits by 15 February, both parties file statements of fact, issues and contentions by 28 February; the matter is fixed for hearing on 3 March, with an estimate of one day; and that the costs of this application are reserved.

Associate:

Dated:              23 December 1998