Giam v Patterson [2020] NSWSC 593

Giam v Patterson [2020] NSWSC 593

The application to vacate the hearing date was refused because Ms Patterson's own psychologist considered her "Presser fit", and it would offend common sense to treat a person fit to stand trial for criminal fraud as unable fairly to participate in a civil trial involving the same or similar allegations. The psychologist's contrary concern about her ability to participate was given in ignorance of Ms Patterson's substantial prior preparation, including a detailed affidavit. Other evidence showed she had been able to engage with the psychologist, Mr Patterson and her lawyers, and much of the necessary preparation was already advanced. Further delay would cause grave injustice to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Practice and Procedure Application to Vacate Hearing Date / Notice of Motion Filed 15 May 2020 by the Defendants Seeking to Have the Hearing Date Vacated
Outcome
Application to vacate hearing date refused
Legal Topics
['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'fitness to Participate in Civil Proceedings' 'presser Fitness' 'adjournment' 'fair Trial']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'fitness to Participate in Civil Proceedings' 'presser Fitness' 'adjournment' 'fair Trial']

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

Equity Commercial List; Practice and Procedure Application to Vacate Hearing Date / Notice of Motion Filed 15 May 2020 by the Defendants Seeking to Have the Hearing Date Vacated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing date commencing 25 May 2020 should be vacated because Ms Patterson was allegedly unable properly and fairly to participate in the civil trial.' 'Whether Ms Patterson\'s psychologist\'s opinion that she was "Presser fit" supported refusal of the application to vacate the hearing date.' "Whether the prejudice to the plaintiff from further delay outweighed the defendants' asserted need for an adjournment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vacate the hearing date was refused because Ms Patterson's own psychologist considered her "Presser fit", and it would offend common sense to treat a person fit to stand trial for criminal fraud as unable fairly to participate in a civil trial involving the same or similar allegations. The psychologist's contrary concern about her ability to participate was given in ignorance of Ms Patterson's substantial prior preparation, including a detailed affidavit. Other evidence showed she had been able to engage with the psychologist, Mr Patterson and her lawyers, and much of the necessary preparation was already advanced. Further delay would cause grave injustice to the...

Court Disposition

Application to vacate hearing date refused

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion filed 15 May 2020 dismissed with costs.' 'Application to vacate the 25 May 2020 hearing date refused.']