Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd; Lewis v Lamb

HIS HONOUR : Mr Cotman, of Senior Counsel for the Lewis interests, has put to me that the justification for the stay in the common law matter (see Lewis v Lamb [2004] NSWSC 322) is now evaporated because it is now plain that Lamru will not receive any sum of money through the mechanism of substantive orders made in its favour as a result of the proceedings. However, that ignores the question of costs orders.

Mr Cotman says that because of the multifarious claims which went each way, Lamru should equally be regarded as not likely to receive any substantial award in its favour under a costs order. To me that is not apparent. In saying that, it should not be thought that I have made or am making some prejudgment of how the costs application will go. I can only say that it seems to me at least a possibility that a substantive costs order in Lamru's favour may eventuate, conceding that that will require the sorting out of complex and difficult countervailing issues when costs come to be argued.

For those reasons, in my view the appropriate course is that existing stays should continue up to and including 5 August 2005.