Coshott v Spencer (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1175

Coshott v Spencer (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1175

The adjournment was refused because the plaintiff's lack of readiness resulted from her own delay in preparing the matter, including deferring the briefing of counsel and relying on her husband, who was no longer entitled to practise law. The case had been listed for nine months, the plaintiff had not proceeded with expedition, and the unavailable hearing dates could not be reallocated. Any possible prejudice to the plaintiff did not outweigh the injustice to the defendants, the inconvenience to the Court and the disruption to the administration of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Adjournment Application in Professional Negligence Proceedings / Notice of Motion Filed 28 August 2020 Heard on 31 August 2020 Before a Three Day Hearing Listed to Commence on 1 September 2020
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for adjournment refused; application for leave to file a third further amended statement of claim stood over; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the adjournment application.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Hearing' 'case Management' 'costs' 'amendment of Pleadings']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence'] ['adjournment of Hearing' 'case Management' 'costs' 'amendment of Pleadings']

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 Procedure Adjournment Application in Professional Negligence Proceedings / Notice of Motion Filed 28 August 2020 Heard on 31 August 2020 Before a Three Day Hearing Listed to Commence on 1 September 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's late application for adjournment of the listed hearing should be granted." "Whether the plaintiff's need for further preparation, an expert report, documents and possible amendment justified vacating the hearing date." 'Whether any injustice to the plaintiff from refusing an adjournment outweighed prejudice to the defendants, inconvenience to the Court and disruption to the administration of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the plaintiff's lack of readiness resulted from her own delay in preparing the matter, including deferring the briefing of counsel and relying on her husband, who was no longer entitled to practise law. The case had been listed for nine months, the plaintiff had not proceeded with expedition, and the unavailable hearing dates could not be reallocated. Any possible prejudice to the plaintiff did not outweigh the injustice to the defendants, the inconvenience to the Court and the disruption to the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for adjournment refused; application for leave to file a third further amended statement of claim stood over; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the adjournment application.

Orders

  • ["Refuse the plaintiff's application for adjournment made by notice of motion filed on 28 August 2020." "Stand over the plaintiff's application for leave to file a third further amended statement of claim to 9.30am on 1 September 2020." "Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the application for...