LEICESTER v WALTON [1995] NSWCA 258

LEICESTER v WALTON [1995] NSWCA 258

Adjournment was appropriate due to appellant's sudden loss of legal representation and inability to obtain new counsel in time. The absence of compliance with notice requirements under the Supreme Court Rules by the solicitor did not justify ordering him to pay costs, as his conduct did not amount to serious neglect, incompetence or misconduct, nor did it occasion wasted or improperly incurred costs. Application to adduce fresh evidence was refused as the further complaint should be heard by the Tribunal in the ordinary way and should not delay the appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Dr Robert Barnaby Duncan Leicester; Respondent: Walton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Severity of Medical Tribunal Orders / Hearing of Appeal Adjourned, Respondent's Notice of Motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence Dismissed
Outcome
Adjournment granted; respondent's application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed; no order as to costs for application for adjournment or wasted hearing date.
Legal Topics
Appeal Procedure, Solicitor Ceasing to Act, Adjournment, Costs, Adducing Fresh Evidence
Disciplinary Proceedings Medical Law Appeal Procedure Solicitor Ceasing to Act Adjournment Costs Adducing Fresh Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Robert Barnaby Duncan Leicester

Appellant

Walton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Severity of Medical Tribunal Orders / Hearing of Appeal Adjourned, Respondent's Notice of Motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjournment of the appeal should be granted due to withdrawal of appellant's legal representation
  2. 2 Whether costs of the application for adjournment and wasted hearing date should be ordered against appellant or solicitor
  3. 3 Whether respondent's application to adduce fresh evidence should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment was appropriate due to appellant's sudden loss of legal representation and inability to obtain new counsel in time. The absence of compliance with notice requirements under the Supreme Court Rules by the solicitor did not justify ordering him to pay costs, as his conduct did not amount to serious neglect, incompetence or misconduct, nor did it occasion wasted or improperly incurred costs. Application to adduce fresh evidence was refused as the further complaint should be heard by the Tribunal in the ordinary way and should not delay the appeal.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted; respondent's application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed; no order as to costs for application for adjournment or wasted hearing date.

Orders

  • Respondent's notice of motion of 16 October 1995 dismissed with costs.
  • Hearing of the appeal adjourned.