KEVERN V. MARSHALL [2000] NSWSC 1236

KEVERN V. MARSHALL [2000] NSWSC 1236

The Notice of Motion was adjourned because there was no longer urgency to determine the alleged breaches before the hearing, determining the motion would not resolve the third party's difficulty regarding the items, and deciding it would probably require assessing the credibility of the plaintiff and defendant on limited material when that assessment should be made on all available material at the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Have the Plaintiff Dealt With for Alleged Contempt of Court / Application to Adjourn the Notice of Motion to the Hearing of the Case
Outcome
Notice of Motion adjourned to the hearing of the case on 27 February 2001; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the day; plaintiff permitted to make photocopies of documents produced by the Department of Agriculture.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Contempt Application' 'alleged Breach of Court Orders' 'credibility Determinations on Limited Material' 'costs of Adjournment']
['practice' 'contempt of Court'] ['adjournment of Contempt Application' 'alleged Breach of Court Orders' 'credibility Determinations on Limited Material' 'costs of Adjournment']

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

Notice of Motion to Have the Plaintiff Dealt With for Alleged Contempt of Court / Application to Adjourn the Notice of Motion to the Hearing of the Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Notice of Motion alleging contempt should be adjourned to the hearing of the case.' 'Whether allegations involving alleged breach of court orders and credibility should be determined before the hearing on limited material.' 'Who should pay the costs of the day when the applicant sought determination of the motion and then sought adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion was adjourned because there was no longer urgency to determine the alleged breaches before the hearing, determining the motion would not resolve the third party's difficulty regarding the items, and deciding it would probably require assessing the credibility of the plaintiff and defendant on limited material when that assessment should be made on all available material at the hearing.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion adjourned to the hearing of the case on 27 February 2001; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the day; plaintiff permitted to make photocopies of documents produced by the Department of Agriculture.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion is adjourned to the hearing of the case on 27 February 2001.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of today." 'The plaintiff is permitted to make photocopies of documents produced by the Department of Agriculture.']