Secured Lending 1 Pty Ltd v Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 729

Secured Lending 1 Pty Ltd v Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 729

Because the plaintiffs did not oppose a short adjournment and the defendant sought time to serve evidence, the further hearing of the plaintiffs' motion was adjourned to 19 June 2020 with costs reserved. Leave was not granted to Ms Madormo to appear for the defendant because she was not a legal practitioner, made serious allegations without identifying a proper foundation, and her conduct illustrated why non-qualified persons should not generally be permitted to appear.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Orders Including Judgment for Possession of Land and Leave to Issue a Writ of Possession / Further Hearing of the Plaintiffs' Motion Filed 14 April 2020
Outcome
Further hearing adjourned; leave for Ms Madormo to appear on behalf of the defendant not granted.
Legal Topics
['representation by Unqualified Persons' 'adjournment' 'possession of Land' 'consent Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law'] ['representation by Unqualified Persons' 'adjournment' 'possession of Land' 'consent Orders']

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

Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Orders Including Judgment for Possession of Land and Leave to Issue a Writ of Possession / Further Hearing of the Plaintiffs' Motion Filed 14 April 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the further hearing of the plaintiffs' motion should be adjourned to allow the defendant to serve evidence." 'Whether leave should be granted for a non-lawyer, Ms Madormo, to appear on behalf of the defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs did not oppose a short adjournment and the defendant sought time to serve evidence, the further hearing of the plaintiffs' motion was adjourned to 19 June 2020 with costs reserved. Leave was not granted to Ms Madormo to appear for the defendant because she was not a legal practitioner, made serious allegations without identifying a proper foundation, and her conduct illustrated why non-qualified persons should not generally be permitted to appear.

Court Disposition

Further hearing adjourned; leave for Ms Madormo to appear on behalf of the defendant not granted.

Orders

  • ["The further hearing of the plaintiffs' motion filed 14 April 2020 is adjourned until 19 June 2020." 'Costs reserved.']