Charlton v National Australia Bank Ltd [2020] NSWCA 237

Charlton v National Australia Bank Ltd [2020] NSWCA 237

The evidence provided did not sufficiently justify vacating the hearing dates. The explanations of harvest time work commitments and the potential to brief counsel were too general and speculative. The appeal has already been delayed and there is no demonstration of practical injustice or lack of procedural fairness requiring the hearing to be postponed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'procedural Fairness' 'directions Hearings']

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 Appeal / Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 ["whether hearing dates should be vacated due to the appellant's work commitments and potential to brief legal counsel" "use of court's discretion to amend directions"]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence provided did not sufficiently justify vacating the hearing dates. The explanations of harvest time work commitments and the potential to brief counsel were too general and speculative. The appeal has already been delayed and there is no demonstration of practical injustice or lack of procedural fairness requiring the hearing to be postponed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the first appellant's application to vacate the hearing dates set for 26 and 27 November 2020." 'Order the first appellant pay the costs of that application.' 'Amend paragraph 9 of the directions and orders made on 17 August 2020 to provide that the respondent serve the electronic copy and agreed hard copy...