Burrell Solicitors Pty Ltd v Reavill Farm Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 107

Burrell Solicitors Pty Ltd v Reavill Farm Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 107

The adjournment was refused because the defendants had not acted with expedition to pay long-standing judgment debts, had assets more than sufficient to pay and could pay the money into Court notwithstanding the dispute between the plaintiff and BS Legal Pty Ltd, while an adjournment would maintain the stay of enforcement, prejudice the judgment creditor and its liquidator, and would not reflect the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Common Law; Procedural Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Defendants' Notices of Motion Objecting to Refusal of Instalment Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing on 2 February 2018
Outcome
Adjournment refused; defendants did not proceed with their motions of objection; Notices of Motion dismissed with costs; judgment reserved on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
['application for Adjournment' 'instalment Payment of Judgment Debts' 'stay of Enforcement' 'overriding Purpose' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['application for Adjournment' 'instalment Payment of Judgment Debts' 'stay of Enforcement' 'overriding Purpose' '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

Common Law; Procedural Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Defendants' Notices of Motion Objecting to Refusal of Instalment Application / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing on 2 February 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' Notices of Motion should be adjourned for six months to permit steps to obtain finance and await resolution of the dispute between Burrell Solicitors Pty Ltd and BS Legal Pty Ltd." 'Whether the defendants had approached payment of the judgment debts with sufficient expedition.' 'Whether the interests of justice and the overriding purpose favoured granting an adjournment where it would maintain a stay of enforcement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the defendants had not acted with expedition to pay long-standing judgment debts, had assets more than sufficient to pay and could pay the money into Court notwithstanding the dispute between the plaintiff and BS Legal Pty Ltd, while an adjournment would maintain the stay of enforcement, prejudice the judgment creditor and its liquidator, and would not reflect the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; defendants did not proceed with their motions of objection; Notices of Motion dismissed with costs; judgment reserved on remaining issues.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion in each proceeding filed by the defendants on 6 September 2017 be dismissed.' 'Order the defendants to pay the costs of the plaintiff of those Notices of Motion.' 'Judgment reserved on the remaining issues.']