ASK Business Solutions Pty Ltd v Dib [2005] NSWSC 1000

ASK Business Solutions Pty Ltd v Dib [2005] NSWSC 1000

Because the plaintiff's solicitor unexpectedly failed to attend, the plaintiff's manager had brought sufficient evidence to justify continuation of the injunction and sufficient evidence of notice to the defendants, and the defendants did not appear, the Court dispensed with UCPR rr 7.1 and 7.2 for that day only, permitted the manager to appear, and extended the injunction until 30 November 2005 or earlier further order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Concerning Continuation of an Injunction / Application to Continue an Ex Parte Injunction
Outcome
Injunction extended and plaintiff's manager permitted to appear for the company for that day only despite lack of proved authority.
Legal Topics
['appearance in Court by Company' 'authority of Non Lawyer Manager to Appear for Company' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'service by Facsimile' 'dispensation From Uniform Civil Procedure Rules']
['corporations' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['appearance in Court by Company' 'authority of Non Lawyer Manager to Appear for Company' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'service by Facsimile' 'dispensation From Uniform Civil Procedure Rules']

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

Equity Proceeding Concerning Continuation of an Injunction / Application to Continue an Ex Parte Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff company should be permitted to appear by its manager although his authority to appear for the company was not proved in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' "Whether the ex parte injunction should be continued despite irregularity in the proceedings and the defendants' non-appearance." 'Whether there was sufficient evidence that the defendants had notice of the application to continue the injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff's solicitor unexpectedly failed to attend, the plaintiff's manager had brought sufficient evidence to justify continuation of the injunction and sufficient evidence of notice to the defendants, and the defendants did not appear, the Court dispensed with UCPR rr 7.1 and 7.2 for that day only, permitted the manager to appear, and extended the injunction until 30 November 2005 or earlier further order.

Court Disposition

Injunction extended and plaintiff's manager permitted to appear for the company for that day only despite lack of proved authority.

Orders

  • ['Dispense with the relevant provisions of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 7.1 and 7.2 to permit Mr Alavelu to appear for the plaintiff on 4 October 2005 only.' 'Extend the injunction up to and including 30 November 2005 or earlier further order.' 'Grant liberty to the defendants to apply to dissolve or vary...