LUKIN PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) -v- BRISTOW [2026] WASC 325

[2026] WASC 325 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL CITATION : LUKIN PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) -v- BRISTOW [2026] WASC 325 CORAM : GETHING J HEARD : 16 JULY 2026 DELIVERED : 16 JULY 2026 PUBLISHED : 7 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : CIV 2159 of 2025 BETWEEN : LUKIN PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) Plaintiff AND ANGELA VIOLET BRISTOW Defendant Catchwords: Practice and procedure - Enforcement of judgments – Whether there are special circumstances to justify suspending enforcement action Legislation: Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) s 15 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 60A r 4 -- 1 of 4 -- [2026] WASC 325 Page 2 Result: Appeal from decision of a registrar to refuse a stay dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : Mr J Nagle Defendant : In Person Solicitors: Plaintiff : Edwards Mac Scovell Legal Defendant : In Person Case(s) referred to in decision(s): CVW Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Addison [2011] WASC 267 National Australia Bank Limited v RGP Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 102 Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Lock [2022] WASC 276 Warwick Entertainment Centre Pty Ltd (Receivers And Managers Appointed) atf The Warwick Entertainment Centre Unit Trust v Silkchime Pty Ltd (Receivers And Managers Appointed) atf The Silkchime Unit Trust [No 4] [2018] WASC 120 -- 2 of 4 -- [2026] WASC 325 GETHING J Page 3 GETHING J: (This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 16 July 2026 and has been edited to correct grammar and infelicities of language and to include full references to relevant evidence and authorities). 1 The application brought by Ms Bristow, the Defendant, is an appeal against is the decision of Acting Registrar Hill (Registrar) to decline to issue a suspension order in relation to the Defendant's residential property. Registrar Hill made the order on 23 June 2026. 2 There exists a right to appeal the decision from a registrar to a judge, and the Defendant has done this in the application before me today.1 The nature of the appeal is an appeal de novo.2 What that means is that I have to consider the matter refresh. In order to succeed, the Defendant does not have to show that the Registrar made any mistake. 3 In terms of the affidavit evidence before the court, there is an affidavit the Defendant filed on 8 July 2026, which I accept. I am also going to proceed on the basis that if I had I given the Defendant the opportunity to do so, she would have filed an affidavit which sets out the matters spoken about at the hearing, in particular the difficulties that happened at the Family Court and the fact that in the Defendant's business, staff had left, including computers going astray. 4 The law is clear in relation to a suspension order. Under Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) (CJEA) s 15(3) '[o]n such an application, the court may only make such an order if there are special circumstances that justify doing so.' 5 The general principles in relation to the grant of a suspension order are well established and for present purposes, they are as follows:3 (a) the successful litigant would ordinarily be entitled to enforce the judgment; 1 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 60A r 4. 2 CVW Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Addison [2011] WASC 267 [17] (Le Miere J). 3 See for example: National Australia Bank Limited v RGP Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 102 [32]; Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Lock [2022] WASC 276 [19]; Warwick Entertainment Centre Pty Ltd (Receivers And Managers Appointed) atf The Warwick Entertainment Centre Unit Trust v Silkchime Pty Ltd (Receivers And Managers Appointed) atf The Silkchime Unit Trust [No 4] [2018] WASC 120 [48]. -- 3 of 4 -- [2026] WASC 325 GETHING J Page 4 (b) it is for the applicant to move the Court to a favourable exercise of its discretion, that is, to establish that there are special circumstances that justify departure from the ordinary rule; (c) the court will not exercise its discretion unless special circumstances are shown; (d) the class of cases which meet the test of special circumstances is not closed and each case must be determined on its merits; (e) delay on the part of the judgment debtor will weigh against the exercise of discretion; and (f) the court may consider the balance of convenience including any hardship to the judgment debtor. 6 In this case, on the affidavit evidence before the court, the Defendant is not even close to satisfying me that there are special circumstances for granting a suspension order. 7 It is inevitable in relation to a property seizure and delivery order that there is going to be a measure of upheaval in the life of the person against whom that order is sought. The Plaintiff in this case has, in my view, given the Defendant a generous amount of time to order her affairs in the knowledge that the sale was inevitable. 8 In that situation, we come back to the fundamental proposition that the Plaintiff has a valid judgment and the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce that judgment. On that basis, I am going to decline to set aside the decision of the Registrar, to dismiss the Defendant's application for a suspension order. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. OB Associate to the Hon Justice Gething 7 AUGUST 2026 -- 4 of 4 --