Clinical Laboratories Pty Ltd v General Practice Support Services Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1832

Clinical Laboratories Pty Ltd v General Practice Support Services Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1832

The hearing date was not vacated because the Second Defendant had been on notice of the fixture for almost six months, had failed to comply with directions and adequately prepare, gave no adequate explanation for not obtaining witness affidavits earlier, provided scant financial information to support impecuniosity, and the dictates of justice, including justice to the Plaintiff and ss 56 to 58 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, weighed against adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Proceedings Claiming Money Due Under a Deed / Second Defendant's Notice of Motion to Vacate Hearing Dates
Outcome
Second Defendant's application refused and Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'adjournment' 'impecuniosity' 'failure to Comply With Court Directions' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'adjournment' 'impecuniosity' 'failure to Comply With Court Directions' '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

Interlocutory Application in Proceedings Claiming Money Due Under a Deed / Second Defendant's Notice of Motion to Vacate Hearing Dates

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing dates should be vacated because of the Second Defendant's asserted impecuniosity and need to prepare further material." 'Whether the Second Defendant had provided adequate information and explanation for his financial position, lack of preparation, and failures to comply with court directions.' 'Whether the dictates of justice under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 supported an adjournment or vacation of the hearing date.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing date was not vacated because the Second Defendant had been on notice of the fixture for almost six months, had failed to comply with directions and adequately prepare, gave no adequate explanation for not obtaining witness affidavits earlier, provided scant financial information to support impecuniosity, and the dictates of justice, including justice to the Plaintiff and ss 56 to 58 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, weighed against adjournment.

Court Disposition

Second Defendant's application refused and Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Second Defendant's application to vacate hearing dates refused and the Notice of Motion dated 5 December 2013 dismissed." "Second Defendant to pay Plaintiff's costs of the Motion."]