SIMMONDS v SPOONER [No. 1] [1995] NSWCA 427

SIMMONDS v SPOONER [No. 1] [1995] NSWCA 427

Adjournment should be refused because delay and solicitor difficulties do not establish sufficient grounds; alleged 'fresh evidence' does not meet admissibility requirements, and the appellant had notice and opportunity to prepare. Efficient court operation requires matters listed for hearing to proceed as scheduled unless clear injustice would result.

Parties
Appellant: Gregory Simmonds; Respondent: Spooner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Application for Adjournment Pending Appeal in Court of Appeal
Outcome
Motion for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Hearing, Appeals Procedure, Damages, Preparation for Appeal
Practice and Procedure Personal Injury Adjournment of Hearing Appeals Procedure Damages Preparation for Appeal

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Simmonds

Appellant

Spooner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Application for Adjournment Pending Appeal in Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing of the appeal should be adjourned to permit proper preparation
  2. 2 Whether proposed evidence constitutes fresh evidence admissible on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment should be refused because delay and solicitor difficulties do not establish sufficient grounds; alleged 'fresh evidence' does not meet admissibility requirements, and the appellant had notice and opportunity to prepare. Efficient court operation requires matters listed for hearing to proceed as scheduled unless clear injustice would result.

Court Disposition

Motion for adjournment refused

Orders

  • Matter ordered to stand to the bottom of the Court's list to proceed on the day listed