Allouche v Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd and PPS (No 2) Pty Ltd t/as Prestige Cleaning Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCC 5

Allouche v Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd and PPS (No 2) Pty Ltd t/as Prestige Cleaning Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCC 5

The second respondent is entitled to an adjournment as it was not apprised of a material fact—the refurbishment of the vacuum cleaner—potentially affecting the noise levels central to the industrial deafness claim, and the adjournment is granted with costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Claim / Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Second respondent’s application for adjournment granted; matter stood over to pending list.
Legal Topics
['industrial Deafness' 'adjournment' 'particulars' 'costs']
['workers Compensation'] ['industrial Deafness' 'adjournment' 'particulars' '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

Workers Compensation Claim / Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second respondent is entitled to an adjournment due to lack of notice of material fact regarding vacuum cleaner refurbishment' 'Whether proper particulars had been supplied for a claim of industrial deafness' 'How costs should be apportioned due to adjournment']

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent is entitled to an adjournment as it was not apprised of a material fact—the refurbishment of the vacuum cleaner—potentially affecting the noise levels central to the industrial deafness claim, and the adjournment is granted with costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Second respondent’s application for adjournment granted; matter stood over to pending list.

Orders

  • ['Adjournment granted; stood over to the top of the pending list.' 'Costs thrown away by the adjournment to be costs in the cause.' 'First respondent not liable for costs thrown away by the adjournment.' 'If applicant succeeds against first respondent only, costs of today to be paid by second respondent.']