Iscorp Investments Pty Ltd v Yohana [2011] NSWSC 1399

Iscorp Investments Pty Ltd v Yohana [2011] NSWSC 1399

The application for adjournment was refused because none of the reasons advanced by the plaintiff, individually or cumulatively, justified postponing the proceedings. The court was not satisfied that the possibility of obtaining funding from third parties was anything more than speculative. The non-payment of costs orders by the defendant in other proceedings was found irrelevant to this application. The balance of interests, including the need for the proceedings to progress and judicial resources, warranted refusal of the adjournment.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Iscorp Investments Pty Ltd; Defendant/cross Claimant: Youbert Yohana
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Adjournment Application Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's adjournment application refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment Application, Costs, Injunctions, Court's Discretion Under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)
Practice and Procedure Adjournment Application Costs Injunctions Court's Discretion Under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iscorp Investments Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Youbert Yohana

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Adjournment Application Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application for an adjournment should be granted
  2. 2 Whether financial difficulties or other matters put forward by the plaintiff warranted adjournment
  3. 3 Whether non-payment of costs orders by the defendant in other proceedings should affect the adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused because none of the reasons advanced by the plaintiff, individually or cumulatively, justified postponing the proceedings. The court was not satisfied that the possibility of obtaining funding from third parties was anything more than speculative. The non-payment of costs orders by the defendant in other proceedings was found irrelevant to this application. The balance of interests, including the need for the proceedings to progress and judicial resources, warranted refusal of the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's adjournment application refused

Orders

  • Plaintiff's adjournment application refused.
  • Plaintiff to pay the costs of this adjournment application, including the mention last Friday.