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.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment