El-Saiedy v Superintendent Wademan, Parramatta Sheriff’s Office [2022] NSWSC 1615

El-Saiedy v Superintendent Wademan, Parramatta Sheriff’s Office [2022] NSWSC 1615

The adjournment was refused because the pending or possible action of the Attorney-General on the plaintiff's complaint had no logical connection with the proper exercise of the Court's powers in the interlocutory proceedings, and it would be wrong to forestall the ordinary processes of the Court on that basis. As the plaintiff's motion was unsuccessful, the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Commenced by Summons Seeking Declarations and Injunctions / Notice of Motion Seeking Adjournment of a Hearing Fixed for Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; interlocutory hearing date confirmed; plaintiff ordered to pay the Sheriff's costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'interlocutory Relief' 'subpoenas' 'public Interest Immunity' 'harman Undertaking' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'interlocutory Relief' 'subpoenas' 'public Interest Immunity' 'harman Undertaking' '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

Civil Proceedings Commenced by Summons Seeking Declarations and Injunctions / Notice of Motion Seeking Adjournment of a Hearing Fixed for Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing fixed for 6 December 2022 should be adjourned to allow consideration of the plaintiff's complaint to the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales." "Whether the unsuccessful plaintiff should pay the Sheriff's costs of the notice of motion." "Whether the plaintiff's use of documents obtained through court processes raised an issue under the implied Harman undertaking."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the pending or possible action of the Attorney-General on the plaintiff's complaint had no logical connection with the proper exercise of the Court's powers in the interlocutory proceedings, and it would be wrong to forestall the ordinary processes of the Court on that basis. As the plaintiff's motion was unsuccessful, the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applied.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; interlocutory hearing date confirmed; plaintiff ordered to pay the Sheriff's costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ["Mr El-Saeidy's notice of motion filed on 18 November 2022 is dismissed." 'In relation to the claim for interlocutory relief, the date for the hearing of the claims previously fixed for interlocutory relief on 6 December 2022 is confirmed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the Sheriff's costs of and incidental to the...