Tam v Super Seasons Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1366

Tam v Super Seasons Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1366

The adjournment was caused by the second defendant's late acceptance that it was the relevant workers compensation insurer, withdrawal of pleaded denials maintained for almost two years, and late application on the morning of hearing to amend its Defence to plead matters required by the Rules from the start. There was no adequate explanation for the delay, and the resulting wasted hearing time and preparation justified ordering the second defendant to pay the plaintiff's and first defendant's adjournment costs on an indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Proceedings; Procedural Ruling / Application for Adjournment, Costs and Amendment Issues at Commencement of Final Hearing
Outcome
Proceedings adjourned; 10-day hearing vacated; second defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's and first defendant's costs occasioned by the adjournment on an indemnity basis; first defendant granted leave to file an Amended Defence.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Hearing' 'late Amendment of Pleadings' 'indemnity Costs' 'procedural Preconditions to Claim' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decision']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'workers Compensation'] ['adjournment of Hearing' 'late Amendment of Pleadings' 'indemnity Costs' 'procedural Preconditions to Claim' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decision']

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

Civil Negligence Proceedings; Procedural Ruling / Application for Adjournment, Costs and Amendment Issues at Commencement of Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the final hearing should be adjourned after the second defendant changed its position and sought late amendment of its Defence.' "Whether the second defendant should pay the plaintiff's and first defendant's costs occasioned by the adjournment on an indemnity basis." "Whether the Court should determine the second defendant's application to amend its Defence at this stage." 'Whether the first defendant should be granted leave to file an Amended Defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was caused by the second defendant's late acceptance that it was the relevant workers compensation insurer, withdrawal of pleaded denials maintained for almost two years, and late application on the morning of hearing to amend its Defence to plead matters required by the Rules from the start. There was no adequate explanation for the delay, and the resulting wasted hearing time and preparation justified ordering the second defendant to pay the plaintiff's and first defendant's adjournment costs on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Proceedings adjourned; 10-day hearing vacated; second defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's and first defendant's costs occasioned by the adjournment on an indemnity basis; first defendant granted leave to file an Amended Defence.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings are adjourned.' 'The 10-day hearing fixed to commence on 10 October 2022 is vacated.' 'Order the second defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment of both the plaintiff and the first defendant on an indemnity basis.' 'Grant either the plaintiff or the first defendant liberty to...