Flowers v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 317

Flowers v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 317

The motion was dismissed because the matters relied on by the plaintiff did not justify adjournment or vacation of the hearing dates: the transcript complaints and Rome Statute issue were not preliminary to the substantive hearing, the closed-file material was available to the plaintiff or in the court books, the identity of the person who closed the file was immaterial, and the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity over the five months since listing to prepare and present his case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Adjournment and Vacation of Hearing Dates in Common Law Proceedings / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling Before Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'vacation of Hearing Dates' 'procedural Fairness' 'preliminary Discovery' 'access to Court File' 'trial by Jury' 'amendment of Pleadings']
['civil Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'vacation of Hearing Dates' 'procedural Fairness' 'preliminary Discovery' 'access to Court File' 'trial by Jury' 'amendment of Pleadings']

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Seeking Adjournment and Vacation of Hearing Dates in Common Law Proceedings / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling Before Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's motion justified adjourning the proceedings and vacating the hearing dates." 'Whether alleged transcript errors, access to a closed file, the identity of the person who closed the file, or reliance on the Rome Statute required adjournment or other preliminary relief.' 'Whether the plaintiff had been denied a proper opportunity to prepare and present his case.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the matters relied on by the plaintiff did not justify adjournment or vacation of the hearing dates: the transcript complaints and Rome Statute issue were not preliminary to the substantive hearing, the closed-file material was available to the plaintiff or in the court books, the identity of the person who closed the file was immaterial, and the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity over the five months since listing to prepare and present his case.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion is dismissed.' 'The matter will proceed.']