Megally v Bojanic [2024] NSWSC 869

Megally v Bojanic [2024] NSWSC 869

The adjournment application was dismissed because the applicant's reason for seeking an adjournment was unsatisfactory. Reply submissions were not a precondition to the appeal proceeding; no adequate explanation was given for briefing counsel who was unavailable for the substantive hearing or for not briefing counsel earlier; the applicant's own submissions had been filed late; the procedural history favoured refusal; delay would cause prejudice and continued costs contrary to the overriding purpose; and the appeal did not appear to have strong merits, particularly on costs where leave was required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Common Law Appeal From the Local Court of New South Wales With a Notice of Motion to Vacate the Hearing Date / Adjourn the Appeal Hearing / Motion for Adjournment Heard on the Listed Hearing Date of the Appeal
Outcome
Motion seeking to vacate the hearing / application for an adjournment dismissed.
Legal Topics
['notice of Motion' 'adjournment' 'application to Vacate Hearing' 'preparation of Reply Submissions' 'appeal From Local Court' 'costs Orders' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['notice of Motion' 'adjournment' 'application to Vacate Hearing' 'preparation of Reply Submissions' 'appeal From Local Court' 'costs Orders' 'overriding Purpose']

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 Appeal From the Local Court of New South Wales With a Notice of Motion to Vacate the Hearing Date / Adjourn the Appeal Hearing / Motion for Adjournment Heard on the Listed Hearing Date of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal hearing should be vacated or adjourned because counsel had not had time to prepare reply submissions.' "Whether the applicant's explanation for not being ready for the appeal hearing justified an adjournment in light of the procedural history and the overriding purpose." 'Whether delay and additional costs would prejudice the respondent and the administration of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment application was dismissed because the applicant's reason for seeking an adjournment was unsatisfactory. Reply submissions were not a precondition to the appeal proceeding; no adequate explanation was given for briefing counsel who was unavailable for the substantive hearing or for not briefing counsel earlier; the applicant's own submissions had been filed late; the procedural history favoured refusal; delay would cause prejudice and continued costs contrary to the overriding purpose; and the appeal did not appear to have strong merits, particularly on costs where leave was required.

Court Disposition

Motion seeking to vacate the hearing / application for an adjournment dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Motion seeking an application for an adjournment is dismissed.']