SOLOMON v CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION [1992] NSWCA 235

No case made for adjournment as lack of representation does not warrant vacation given length of time and late application for legal aid; no special circumstances established for leave to represent corporate claimants; no basis for joinder of Peat Marwick as respondents.

Parties: Claimant: Solomon; Opponent: Corporate Affairs Commission; Opponent: Peat Marwick
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 April 1992
Procedural Posture: Motion / Application to Vacate Hearing Date and Other Interlocutory Orders
Outcome: All orders sought in the notice of motion refused; claimant ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics: Adjournment, Vacation of Hearing Date, Self Representation, Joinder of Parties, Leave to Represent Corporate Claimants

Civil Procedure Adjournment Vacation of Hearing Date Self Representation Joinder of Parties Leave to Represent Corporate Claimants

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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Solomon

Claimant

Corporate Affairs Commission

Opponent

Peat Marwick

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Application to Vacate Hearing Date and Other Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

1 Should the hearing date fixed for 27 April 1992 be vacated?
2 Should Mr Solomon be given leave to represent corporate claimants?
3 Should Peat Marwick be joined as respondents?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

All orders sought in the notice of motion refused; claimant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

Application to vacate hearing date refused.
Leave for Mr Solomon to represent corporate claimants refused.