Hurstville City Council v Jacobs (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 161

Hurstville City Council v Jacobs (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 161

The application to vacate the hearing date is dismissed because the evidence in support was unsatisfactory, steps taken by the applicant to obtain legal advice were inadequate, the application was belated, and vacation would not serve the interests of justice under section 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 4 / Ruling on Application to Vacate Hearing Date
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'procedural Fairness' 'interests of Justice' 'section 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005']
['practice and Procedure'] ['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'procedural Fairness' 'interests of Justice' 'section 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005']

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

Class 4 / Ruling on Application to Vacate Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing date for notices of motion should be vacated' 'Whether sufficient evidence and steps were taken by the applicant to justify vacation' 'Consistent application of s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vacate the hearing date is dismissed because the evidence in support was unsatisfactory, steps taken by the applicant to obtain legal advice were inadequate, the application was belated, and vacation would not serve the interests of justice under section 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 6 October 2015 is dismissed.' 'The hearing will proceed on Tuesday next, 13 October, 2015.']