Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Susan Hannaford Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 1174

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Susan Hannaford Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 1174

The third defendant failed to adequately explain the delay in bringing the application for a stay or adjournment and in filing leave documents; efficient conduct and avoidance of delay are now central; the interests of justice do not require a stay or adjournment in light of available appeal rights and the lack of satisfactory explanation, so the application is refused.

Parties
Plaintiff: Commonwealth Bank of Australia; First Defendant: Susan Hannaford Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Susan Hannaford
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Adjournment/stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
third defendant's application refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Adjournment, Delay in Appeal, Leave to Amend Pleadings, Contracts Review Act Application
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Adjournment Delay in Appeal Leave to Amend Pleadings Contracts Review Act Application

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Plaintiff

Susan Hannaford Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Susan Hannaford

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Adjournment/stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be stayed or adjourned pending application for leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether delay in bringing appeal/stay application is justified
  3. 3 Whether the third defendant has provided satisfactory explanation for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The third defendant failed to adequately explain the delay in bringing the application for a stay or adjournment and in filing leave documents; efficient conduct and avoidance of delay are now central; the interests of justice do not require a stay or adjournment in light of available appeal rights and the lack of satisfactory explanation, so the application is refused.

Court Disposition

third defendant's application refused

Orders

  • The third defendant's application for adjournment or stay is refused.