Endemi v Ginman; Moore v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 285

Endemi v Ginman; Moore v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 285

The adjournment was refused because prayer 2 concerned the Registrar's decision to grant the plaintiffs leave to withdraw their summons and was distinct from the Court of Appeal issues concerning prerogative relief, federal jurisdiction and the Commonwealth Director's decisions. The matter did not appear to raise the same federal jurisdiction issues, the summons related to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the Local Court, and the plaintiffs and the Commonwealth Director were present and ready to proceed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Notice of Motion / Application for an Adjournment of the Hearing of Prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion Filed on 28 April 2022
Outcome
The application for an adjournment is refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment Application' 'notice of Motion' "registrar's Decision" 'court of Appeal Proceedings' 'federal Jurisdiction']
['civil Procedure'] ['adjournment Application' 'notice of Motion' "registrar's Decision" 'court of Appeal Proceedings' 'federal Jurisdiction']

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

Civil Procedure; Notice of Motion / Application for an Adjournment of the Hearing of Prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion Filed on 28 April 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing of prayer 2 of the notice of motion should be adjourned until the conclusion of proceedings in the Court of Appeal.' 'Whether the Court of Appeal proceedings raised issues that needed to be decided before prayer 2 could be resolved.' "Whether prayer 2 was distinct from the applicant's cross-summons and prayers 1, 3 and 4 of the motion that had been dismissed by Chen J."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because prayer 2 concerned the Registrar's decision to grant the plaintiffs leave to withdraw their summons and was distinct from the Court of Appeal issues concerning prerogative relief, federal jurisdiction and the Commonwealth Director's decisions. The matter did not appear to raise the same federal jurisdiction issues, the summons related to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the Local Court, and the plaintiffs and the Commonwealth Director were present and ready to proceed.

Court Disposition

The application for an adjournment is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an adjournment is refused.']