von Reisner v Chepurin [2012] NSWCA 422

von Reisner v Chepurin [2012] NSWCA 422

The application for adjournment was refused because the medical certificates relied upon by the applicant were insufficient; the history of the proceedings demonstrated repeated delays with little prospect of progression or success in the review applications; and the interests of justice and the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 required the matters to be determined without further adjournment.

Parties
Applicant: Ms Koidu von Reisner; First Respondent: Dr Oleg Chepurin; Second Respondent: Dr Sophia Wayne-Shevchuk
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Motions for Review and Adjournment in Appellate Civil Proceedings / Decision on Adjournment and Associated Notices of Motion
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; all applicant's notices of motion dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Motions for Review, Costs, Appellate Procedure
Civil Procedure Adjournment Motions for Review Costs Appellate Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Koidu von Reisner

Applicant

Dr Oleg Chepurin

First Respondent

Dr Sophia Wayne-Shevchuk

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motions for Review and Adjournment in Appellate Civil Proceedings / Decision on Adjournment and Associated Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's application for adjournment should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's notices of motion for review should be granted
  3. 3 Whether previous orders (Ward JA's order refusing adjournment, the Registrar's listing decision, Young JA's dismissal of appeal) should be set aside or reviewed

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused because the medical certificates relied upon by the applicant were insufficient; the history of the proceedings demonstrated repeated delays with little prospect of progression or success in the review applications; and the interests of justice and the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 required the matters to be determined without further adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; all applicant's notices of motion dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • Refuse the applicant's application for an adjournment.
  • Dismiss the applicant's notice of motion dated 23 May 2011, amended notice of motion dated 7 July 2011 and amended notice of motion dated 6 December 2012.