Vaughan v Dawson [2005] NSWSC 33

The notice of motion for expedition was dismissed because the applicants did not provide an affidavit compliant with Practice Note 43 stating the grounds for expedition and anticipated issues, thus preventing the court from determining urgency.

Parties: First Plaintiff: Graham David Vaughan; Second Plaintiff: Christine Nash; First Defendant: Rhonda Dawson; Second Defendant: Wayne Dawson; Third Defendant: Illana Lampert; Fourth Defendant: Trevor Solomons; Fifth Defendant: Irena Nebenzhal
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 04 February 2005
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion for Expedition in Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application
Outcome: Application for expedition dismissed
Legal Topics: Expedition of Proceedings, Practice and Procedure Affidavit Requirements, Supreme Court Equity Division Practice

Civil Procedure Equity Expedition of Proceedings Practice and Procedure Affidavit Requirements Supreme Court Equity Division Practice

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Graham David Vaughan

First Plaintiff

Christine Nash

Second Plaintiff

Rhonda Dawson

First Defendant

Wayne Dawson

Second Defendant

Illana Lampert

Third Defendant

Trevor Solomons

Fourth Defendant

Irena Nebenzhal

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Expedition in Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

1 Requirements and procedure for seeking expedition in the Supreme Court Equity Division Expedition List
2 Sufficiency of affidavits in support of applications for expedition

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for expedition dismissed

Orders

Dismiss notice of motion seeking expedition
Plaintiffs to file and serve any additional evidence upon which they seek to rely by Wednesday 9 February 2005