The Trust Company (PTAL) Pty Ltd v Romeo (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 1449

The Trust Company (PTAL) Pty Ltd v Romeo (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 1449

The adjournment was refused because it was sought belatedly, without motion or supporting evidence, after the matter had been listed for hearing by consent; Mr Romeo gave no adequate explanation for the funding and representation issues, no assurance that representation or funds would be available at any adjourned hearing, and no explanation for failing to obtain the Court Book earlier. Granting the adjournment would prejudice the plaintiffs, increase costs, and be inconsistent with the overriding purpose and case management requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Mortgage Possession Proceedings With Cross Claim; Interlocutory Application for Adjournment / Listed for a Five Day Hearing Commencing 30 September 2013; Reasons for Refusal of Adjournment Application
Outcome
Application for adjournment to enable Mr Romeo to engage new legal representatives refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment Application' 'case Management' 'withdrawal of Solicitor' 'possession Claim' 'contracts Review Act Defence' 'competition and Consumer Act Cross Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'mortgage Law' 'contracts' 'consumer Law'] ['adjournment Application' 'case Management' 'withdrawal of Solicitor' 'possession Claim' 'contracts Review Act Defence' 'competition and Consumer Act Cross Claim']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Mortgage Possession Proceedings With Cross Claim; Interlocutory Application for Adjournment / Listed for a Five Day Hearing Commencing 30 September 2013; Reasons for Refusal of Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing should be adjourned so that the first defendant could engage new legal representatives.' "Whether granting the adjournment would be consistent with the Court's case management obligations and the overriding purpose in the Civil Procedure Act 2005." "Whether the late withdrawal of legal representatives and the first defendant's funding difficulties justified an adjournment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because it was sought belatedly, without motion or supporting evidence, after the matter had been listed for hearing by consent; Mr Romeo gave no adequate explanation for the funding and representation issues, no assurance that representation or funds would be available at any adjourned hearing, and no explanation for failing to obtain the Court Book earlier. Granting the adjournment would prejudice the plaintiffs, increase costs, and be inconsistent with the overriding purpose and case management requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment to enable Mr Romeo to engage new legal representatives refused.

Orders

  • ['Adjournment sought not granted.' 'Mr Romeo was to have an adjournment to the following day so that he could take steps to ensure practical access to the Court Book at the hearing.']