Kenoss Pty Ltd v Palerang Council [2013] NSWCA 174

Kenoss Pty Ltd v Palerang Council [2013] NSWCA 174

The Court refused to vacate the hearing date because the applicant provided no evidence explaining its current situation, why its former solicitors ceased acting, what steps had been taken since 13 May 2013 to obtain advice or representation, or why it could not proceed. The appeal involved a discrete question of statutory construction, had been prepared for hearing, and competent counsel could review the material in the remaining time. Having regard to the prejudice considerations and efficient case management, the basis advanced did not warrant vacating a hearing date fixed months earlier.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion Seeking to Vacate the Hearing Date of an Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Applicant's notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'vacation of Hearing Date' 'late Withdrawal of Legal Representation' 'leave to Appeal' 'statutory Construction of Planning Instrument']
['civil Procedure' 'planning and Environment'] ['adjournment' 'vacation of Hearing Date' 'late Withdrawal of Legal Representation' 'leave to Appeal' 'statutory Construction of Planning Instrument']

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

Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion Seeking to Vacate the Hearing Date of an Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing date for the application for leave to appeal and concurrent appeal should be vacated because the applicant's solicitors had ceased acting and the applicant wished to obtain further legal advice." 'Whether the applicant had shown sufficient prejudice or practical inability to proceed to justify vacating a hearing date fixed in February 2013.' 'How the discretion to adjourn or vacate a hearing should be exercised consistently with the overriding purpose, the dictates of justice, prejudice to the parties, and case management considerations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to vacate the hearing date because the applicant provided no evidence explaining its current situation, why its former solicitors ceased acting, what steps had been taken since 13 May 2013 to obtain advice or representation, or why it could not proceed. The appeal involved a discrete question of statutory construction, had been prepared for hearing, and competent counsel could review the material in the remaining time. Having regard to the prejudice considerations and efficient case management, the basis advanced did not warrant vacating a hearing date fixed months earlier.

Court Disposition

Applicant's notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 5 June 2013, with costs." "The applicant's notice of motion to vacate the hearing date is dismissed with costs."]