Stratton v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWDC 10

Stratton v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWDC 10

The proceedings were dismissed because the defendants appeared for a ten day trial but the plaintiff did not appear, the plaintiff's adjournment request was made only indirectly and at the start of the trial, there was no medical evidence supporting her asserted inability to attend or conduct the trial, the proceedings had been on foot for over two years, the trial date had been fixed long in advance, and the interests of justice under the UCPR and Civil Procedure Act 2005 favoured dismissal rather than adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings / Defendants' Application to Dismiss Proceedings at the Commencement of the Final Hearing After the Plaintiff Did Not Appear
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['no Appearance by Plaintiff' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'adjournment of Trial' 'costs' 'medical Evidence']
['civil Procedure' 'tort'] ['no Appearance by Plaintiff' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'adjournment of Trial' 'costs' 'medical Evidence']

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 Proceedings / Defendants' Application to Dismiss Proceedings at the Commencement of the Final Hearing After the Plaintiff Did Not Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be dismissed under Part 29.7(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 because the defendants appeared but the plaintiff did not appear when the trial was called on.' "Whether the plaintiff's late email asserting inability to attend or conduct the trial because of health issues justified an adjournment rather than dismissal." 'Whether the absence of expert medical evidence and the history and length of the proceedings made dismissal in the interests of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were dismissed because the defendants appeared for a ten day trial but the plaintiff did not appear, the plaintiff's adjournment request was made only indirectly and at the start of the trial, there was no medical evidence supporting her asserted inability to attend or conduct the trial, the proceedings had been on foot for over two years, the trial date had been fixed long in advance, and the interests of justice under the UCPR and Civil Procedure Act 2005 favoured dismissal rather than adjournment.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Part 29.7(4) of the UCPR, the proceedings are dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed including the costs related to the plaintiff's application to adjourn the proceedings and of the defendants' application to dismiss the proceedings." 'The...