BIENVENU V. HUTCHISON

BIENVENU V. HUTCHISON

There was no unwarranted delay by the Crown Solicitor. The motion does not affect the applicant's current proceedings. Order 63, Rule 6 is valid. There was no merit in bringing a motion to dismiss the substantive motion on the grounds advanced, which can be addressed during the hearing of that motion.

Parties
Applicant: Constance May Bienvenu; Respondent: Robert Burns Hutchison
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 1971
Procedural Posture
Motion / Motion to Dismiss Notice of Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed with 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Constance May Bienvenu

Applicant

Robert Burns Hutchison

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Motion to Dismiss Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was unwarranted delay by the Crown Solicitor in prosecuting the motion
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Solicitor's motion would prevent or embarrass the applicant in prosecuting existing proceedings
  3. 3 Whether Order 63, Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court is valid

Ratio Decidendi

There was no unwarranted delay by the Crown Solicitor. The motion does not affect the applicant's current proceedings. Order 63, Rule 6 is valid. There was no merit in bringing a motion to dismiss the substantive motion on the grounds advanced, which can be addressed during the hearing of that motion.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Motion dismissed with costs