Dlakic v MLC Limited [2019] NSWSC 387

Dlakic v MLC Limited [2019] NSWSC 387

The hearing was adjourned because, despite the unsatisfactory lateness of the application and lack of current medical evidence, the plaintiff's chaotic prior appearance, the complexity of the issues, the 15-day trial estimate, and the real prospect of proper legal representation being engaged soon made it appropriate to accede to the application. The adjournment was subject to further consideration of costs consequences because the plaintiff's explanation for the delay and need for the adjournment was unsatisfactory and the defendant was not responsible for the case not being ready.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Claim on a Policy of Life Insurance for Income Protection and Total and Permanent Disablement Benefits / Plaintiff's Application to Adjourn or Vacate Hearing Dates Before Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to adjourn the hearing granted; costs thrown away reserved for further consideration.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'self Represented Litigant' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'costs Thrown Away' 'trial Preparation' 'expert Conclaves']
['civil Procedure' 'insurance'] ['adjournment' 'self Represented Litigant' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'costs Thrown Away' 'trial Preparation' 'expert Conclaves']

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

Claim on a Policy of Life Insurance for Income Protection and Total and Permanent Disablement Benefits / Plaintiff's Application to Adjourn or Vacate Hearing Dates Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing fixed to commence on 8 April 2019 should be adjourned or vacated.' "Whether the plaintiff's lack of representation, alleged mental condition, complexity of the case, readiness for hearing, and prospect of obtaining solicitors justified an adjournment." 'Whether any adjournment should be conditioned by costs consequences, including a possible lump-sum costs order and stay until costs are paid.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing was adjourned because, despite the unsatisfactory lateness of the application and lack of current medical evidence, the plaintiff's chaotic prior appearance, the complexity of the issues, the 15-day trial estimate, and the real prospect of proper legal representation being engaged soon made it appropriate to accede to the application. The adjournment was subject to further consideration of costs consequences because the plaintiff's explanation for the delay and need for the adjournment was unsatisfactory and the defendant was not responsible for the case not being ready.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to adjourn the hearing granted; costs thrown away reserved for further consideration.

Orders

  • ['Adjourn the hearing of the matter fixed to commence on Monday 8 April 2019.' 'List the matter before me at 9.30am on Tuesday, 16 April 2019 for the consideration of any application for a lump sum costs order made by the defendant and for further directions as to management of the case.' 'The defendant is to file...