Mackenzie v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2015] NSWSC 603

Mackenzie v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2015] NSWSC 603

Given the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve evidentiary material as required by prior court order and the volume of evidence involved, the first defendant would not have a fair opportunity to prepare its case if the hearing proceeded. Therefore, the hearing date should be vacated.

Parties
Plaintiff: Geoffrey Allen Mackenzie; First Defendant: Allianz Australia Insurance Limited; Second Defendant: Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales; Third Defendant: A Review Panel Appointed by the Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales Constituted by Assessors Burns, Chan and Crane
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application to vacate hearing date granted; orders made as sought by the first defendant; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Vacate Hearing Date, Failure to Comply With Directions, Costs
Civil Law Interlocutory Orders Vacate Hearing Date Failure to Comply With Directions 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Allen Mackenzie

Plaintiff

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited

First Defendant

Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales

Second Defendant

A Review Panel Appointed by the Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales Constituted by Assessors Burns, Chan and Crane

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing date of 27 May 2015 should be vacated due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with directions concerning service of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the requirement for filing and service of a notice of motion should be dispensed with

Ratio Decidendi

Given the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve evidentiary material as required by prior court order and the volume of evidence involved, the first defendant would not have a fair opportunity to prepare its case if the hearing proceeded. Therefore, the hearing date should be vacated.

Court Disposition

Application to vacate hearing date granted; orders made as sought by the first defendant; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Dispense with the requirement for a formal notice of motion.
  • Grant the first defendant’s application to vacate the hearing date of 27 May 2015.