Pollicina and Others v Hume Coal Pty Ltd; Roche & Anor v Hume Coal Pty Ltd; Martin & Anor v Hume Coal Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 1571

Pollicina and Others v Hume Coal Pty Ltd; Roche & Anor v Hume Coal Pty Ltd; Martin & Anor v Hume Coal Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 1571

The adjournment is refused due to lack of supportive evidence from the applicants, balanced against the respondent's potential prejudice, but a short delay is granted to enable applicants to prepare and serve additional material.

Parties
First Applicant of 2015/80476: Phillip Pollicina; Second Applicant of 2015/80476: Fesen Pty Ltd; First Applicant of 2015/80815: Kathleen Roche; Second Applicant of 2015/80815: John Roche; First Applicant of 2015/80825: Kimberley Martin; Second Applicant of 2015/80825: Peter Michael Martin; Respondent of 2015/80476, 2015/80815 and 2015/80825: Hume Coal Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Adjournment Application Pre Hearing Directions
Outcome
Adjournment application refused; hearing adjourned for one week with directions for filing evidence.
Legal Topics
Review of Access Arrangements, Adjournment Application
Mining Law Civil Procedure Review of Access Arrangements Adjournment Application

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Pollicina

First Applicant of 2015/80476

Fesen Pty Ltd

Second Applicant of 2015/80476

Kathleen Roche

First Applicant of 2015/80815

John Roche

Second Applicant of 2015/80815

Kimberley Martin

First Applicant of 2015/80825

Peter Michael Martin

Second Applicant of 2015/80825

Hume Coal Pty Ltd

Respondent of 2015/80476, 2015/80815 and 2015/80825

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Adjournment Application Pre Hearing Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing should be adjourned due to recent delivery of judgment in related proceedings
  2. 2 Whether applicants have provided adequate evidence for adjournment
  3. 3 Balancing fairness to applicants against prejudice to respondent regarding exploration rights

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment is refused due to lack of supportive evidence from the applicants, balanced against the respondent's potential prejudice, but a short delay is granted to enable applicants to prepare and serve additional material.

Court Disposition

Adjournment application refused; hearing adjourned for one week with directions for filing evidence.

Orders

  • Hearing adjourned until Monday 23 November at 10am.
  • Applicants to file and serve further evidence, any amended access agreement, and a schedule of undisputed matters by 4pm Thursday 19 November.