Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Kalantzis [2013] NSWSC 43

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Kalantzis [2013] NSWSC 43

The adjournment application was dismissed because it was made very late, was unexplained, followed a lengthy history of non-compliance with court orders, sought to raise a proposed defence for the first time almost two and a half years after commencement, would waste allocated hearing dates and judicial resources, and would cause significant expense to the Bank. The Court was not satisfied that the dictates of justice permitted or required an adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings on a Guarantee Relating to Debts of Nexon Pty Limited / Notice of Motion Filed 1 February 2013 Seeking to Vacate the Final Hearing Date and Adjourn the Proceedings
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['late Application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'adjournment' 'overriding Purpose' 'dictates of Justice' 'case Management' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'guarantees'] ['late Application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'adjournment' 'overriding Purpose' 'dictates of Justice' 'case Management' 'costs']

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

Common Law Proceedings on a Guarantee Relating to Debts of Nexon Pty Limited / Notice of Motion Filed 1 February 2013 Seeking to Vacate the Final Hearing Date and Adjourn the Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the final hearing date fixed for 5 February 2013 should be vacated and the proceedings adjourned.' 'Whether the defendant provided a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with previous court orders and for the lateness of the application.' 'Whether the dictates of justice supported an adjournment having regard to the overriding purpose, the history of the proceedings, prejudice, and efficient use of judicial resources.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment application was dismissed because it was made very late, was unexplained, followed a lengthy history of non-compliance with court orders, sought to raise a proposed defence for the first time almost two and a half years after commencement, would waste allocated hearing dates and judicial resources, and would cause significant expense to the Bank. The Court was not satisfied that the dictates of justice permitted or required an adjournment.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed 1 February 2013 is dismissed.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion."]