Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1198

Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1198

Given that the plaintiffs are solely responsible for the circumstances leading to the adjournment application, that the defendants are not at fault, and that adjournment without cost provision would unfairly prejudice the defendants, the interests of justice and efficient disposition of proceedings require refusal of the application.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Aleksandra Gacic; Second Plaintiff: Ljiljana Gacic; Third Plaintiff: Branislav Ciric; First Defendant: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Matthew Evans
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application for Adjournment Before Hearing on Defences and Damages
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application for an adjournment is refused.
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Hearing, Solicitors' Retainer Termination, Interests of Justice, Procedure in Defamation Cases
Practice and Procedure Defamation Adjournment of Hearing Solicitors' Retainer Termination Interests of Justice Procedure in Defamation Cases

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

Parties

Aleksandra Gacic

First Plaintiff

Ljiljana Gacic

Second Plaintiff

Branislav Ciric

Third Plaintiff

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Matthew Evans

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Application for Adjournment Before Hearing on Defences and Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant an adjournment to allow plaintiffs to retain new solicitors
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs should be allowed an adjournment when the defendants are not implicated in the reasons for the adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the plaintiffs are solely responsible for the circumstances leading to the adjournment application, that the defendants are not at fault, and that adjournment without cost provision would unfairly prejudice the defendants, the interests of justice and efficient disposition of proceedings require refusal of the application.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application for an adjournment is refused.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' application for an adjournment is refused.