Hamod v State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 1851

Hamod v State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 1851

No grounds demonstrated for abridgment of time, nor any error or miscarriage in the management of the case by Conti J. Parties already had opportunity to make submissions on costs and security for costs. Application for abridging time for service was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Abridgment of Time for Service / Interlocutory (ex Parte) Application
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
['abridgment of Time' 'case Management' 'leave to Appeal' 'security for Costs']
['procedure'] ['abridgment of Time' 'case Management' 'leave to Appeal' 'security for 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

Application for Abridgment of Time for Service / Interlocutory (ex Parte) Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time for service of a notice of motion should be abridged' 'Whether there was error by Conti J in case management or in setting hearing dates' 'Whether applicants were denied further opportunity to make submissions']

Ratio Decidendi

No grounds demonstrated for abridgment of time, nor any error or miscarriage in the management of the case by Conti J. Parties already had opportunity to make submissions on costs and security for costs. Application for abridging time for service was refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • ['The application for abridging time for service be refused.']