Outdoor Education NSW Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 723

Outdoor Education NSW Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 723

The hearing date had to be vacated because the plaintiffs had failed to comply with directions to file and serve written submissions, had given no adequate explanation, and would not be ready for hearing, while the first defendant should not be required to anticipate the plaintiffs' case or respond on an unfairly shortened timetable. Because the plaintiffs' default caused the first defendant to waste costs without explanation, the costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing date were ordered to be paid by the plaintiffs on an indemnity basis. The matter was stood over to allow the plaintiffs time to consider whether maintaining the proceedings was prudent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Seeking Relief Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Procedural Ruling on Vacation of Hearing Date and Further Conduct of Proceedings
Outcome
Hearing date vacated; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs thrown away on an indemnity basis; matter stood over.
Legal Topics
['hearings' 'matter Not Ready for Hearing' 'default in Complying With Directions' 'vacation of Hearing Date' 'indemnity Costs' 'supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw), S 69 Review']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['hearings' 'matter Not Ready for Hearing' 'default in Complying With Directions' 'vacation of Hearing Date' 'indemnity Costs' 'supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw), S 69 Review']

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

Administrative Review Seeking Relief Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Procedural Ruling on Vacation of Hearing Date and Further Conduct of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing date on 22 June 2021 should be vacated because the plaintiffs had not complied with directions and were not ready for hearing.' "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the first defendant's costs thrown away by vacation of the hearing date on an indemnity basis." 'What further procedural orders should be made for the conduct of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing date had to be vacated because the plaintiffs had failed to comply with directions to file and serve written submissions, had given no adequate explanation, and would not be ready for hearing, while the first defendant should not be required to anticipate the plaintiffs' case or respond on an unfairly shortened timetable. Because the plaintiffs' default caused the first defendant to waste costs without explanation, the costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing date were ordered to be paid by the plaintiffs on an indemnity basis. The matter was stood over to allow the plaintiffs time to consider whether maintaining the proceedings was prudent.

Court Disposition

Hearing date vacated; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs thrown away on an indemnity basis; matter stood over.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing date on 22 June 2021, such costs to be paid on an indemnity basis." 'Stand the matter over to 9.15am on Tuesday, 6 July 2021.']