Cameron v Franks (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 929

Cameron v Franks (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 929

The evidence did not establish extenuating circumstances sufficient to justify a retrospective adjournment of the hearing. The defendant's explanation for non-attendance, based on alleged medical incapacity, lack of adequate notice from prior solicitors, and inability to prepare or procure representation, was not supported by direct medical evidence as ordered, nor did the context support a conclusion of incapacity that would excuse non-appearance. Accordingly, the application for retrospective adjournment was dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Brad Alan Cameron; Defendant: Gregory Michael Franks
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Equity / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Retrospective Adjournment
Outcome
Application for retrospective adjournment dismissed. Trustees for sale appointed. Cross-claim dismissed. Costs ordered in favour of plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Hearing, Absence of Party, Section 66 G Proceedings, Trustees for Sale, Cross Claim Procedure
Civil Procedure Equity Adjournment of Hearing Absence of Party Section 66 G Proceedings Trustees for Sale Cross Claim Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brad Alan Cameron

Plaintiff

Gregory Michael Franks

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Equity / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Retrospective Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were extenuating circumstances justifying a retrospective adjournment of the hearing on 17 April 2023 due to the defendant's non-attendance
  2. 2 Whether deficiencies in legal representation or medical grounds warranted adjourning or relisting the hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish extenuating circumstances sufficient to justify a retrospective adjournment of the hearing. The defendant's explanation for non-attendance, based on alleged medical incapacity, lack of adequate notice from prior solicitors, and inability to prepare or procure representation, was not supported by direct medical evidence as ordered, nor did the context support a conclusion of incapacity that would excuse non-appearance. Accordingly, the application for retrospective adjournment was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for retrospective adjournment dismissed. Trustees for sale appointed. Cross-claim dismissed. Costs ordered in favour of plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant/cross claimant's notice of motion filed on 18 May 2023 is dismissed.
  • The defendant/cross claimant is to pay the plaintiff/cross-defendant's costs of the notice of motion filed on 18 May 2023.