D had already commenced Family Court proceedings against P seeking $4.2m, approximately the value of the apartment: [10], [11], [25]

D applied to the Supreme Court to either (i) transfer P’s "ejection" claim to the Family Court, or (ii) pause it until the Family Court claim was over: [8]

P was bedridden and required constant, costly care: [31], [36]

P’s manager had to sell assets to pay for it, while D occupied the apartment rent free: [37]

P’s assets were ~$6m. Mainly the ~$4.2m apartment and one share valued ~$1.36m: [33]

P’s manager said the only realisable asset of P’s was the apartment [39] while D said P could sell the share: [40]

The Court held the share could not be easily sold as the Co would have to sell the boarding house to realise any funds: [43], [44], [87]

This process would be almost comically complex, requiring sequential replacements of directors in 4 different companies: [54]

The were other complexities including building defects which would affect the sale: [58], [59]

The Supreme Court did not make the transfer or order a stay: [90]