HM&O Investments Pty Limited v Ingram [2012] NSWSC 11

HM&O Investments Pty Limited v Ingram [2012] NSWSC 11

Although the unavailability of counsel was long known and the delay and conduct of the plaintiff were unsatisfactory, the interests of justice require vacating the hearing date since new counsel could not be briefed. However, the plaintiff must pay the defendants’ indemnity costs of the application and the vacation of the date, with $40,000 to be paid on account before a new hearing date is set.

Parties
First Plaintiff: H M & O Investments Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff: Teach & Play Pty Limited; First Defendant: Bradley Phillip Ingram; Second Defendant: Glenda Louise Ingram
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory—application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application for adjournment granted; costs ordered against plaintiff on indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Costs, Prejudice, Legal Representation
Civil Procedure Adjournment Costs Prejudice Legal Representation

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

Parties

H M & O Investments Pty Limited

First Plaintiff

Teach & Play Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Bradley Phillip Ingram

First Defendant

Glenda Louise Ingram

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory—application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing date should be vacated due to unavailability of plaintiff’s counsel despite prior knowledge of unavailability
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff should pay costs on indemnity basis due to conduct
  3. 3 Extent of costs and whether lump sum payment should be ordered prior to allocation of further hearing date

Ratio Decidendi

Although the unavailability of counsel was long known and the delay and conduct of the plaintiff were unsatisfactory, the interests of justice require vacating the hearing date since new counsel could not be briefed. However, the plaintiff must pay the defendants’ indemnity costs of the application and the vacation of the date, with $40,000 to be paid on account before a new hearing date is set.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment granted; costs ordered against plaintiff on indemnity basis

Orders

  • Vacate the further hearing of the matter fixed to commence 6 February 2012.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the application and costs incidental to/vacated by vacation of the date on indemnity basis.