Bao v Qu; Tian [2020] NSWSC 587

Bao v Qu; Tian [2020] NSWSC 587

The Court refused the adjournment because the defendants had reasonable opportunity to comply with directions, failed to do so, and the expedition and case management requirements of s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) supported refusing the adjournment.

Parties
Plaintiff: Dexu Bao; First Defendant: Mei Qu; Second Defendant: Xin Tian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Enforcement of Foreign Judgment / Application for Adjournment on Hearing Day
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Foreign Judgment Enforcement, Case Management
Practice and Procedure Adjournment Foreign Judgment Enforcement Case Management

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dexu Bao

Plaintiff

Mei Qu

First Defendant

Xin Tian

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Enforcement of Foreign Judgment / Application for Adjournment on Hearing Day

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for adjournment should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have had reasonable opportunity to prepare and present their case

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the adjournment because the defendants had reasonable opportunity to comply with directions, failed to do so, and the expedition and case management requirements of s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) supported refusing the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused