NCR Australia Pty Ltd v The Credit Connection Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1016

NCR Australia Pty Ltd v The Credit Connection Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1016

Despite the second defendant's dilatoriness, the Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Legal Aid Review Committee appeal was excluded by s 57(b). The Court therefore granted the adjournment, and would in any event have done so in the exercise of discretion because the contempt motion was very serious and the second defendant was pursuing possible sources of representation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Amended Notice of Motion for Punishment for Contempt of Court / Application by the Second Defendant for Adjournment of the Hearing
Outcome
Adjournment granted of application to punish for contempt; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'legal Aid Review Committee Appeal' 'mareva Orders' 'representation']
['contempt of Court' 'civil Procedure' 'legal Aid'] ['adjournment' 'legal Aid Review Committee Appeal' 'mareva Orders' 'representation']

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

Amended Notice of Motion for Punishment for Contempt of Court / Application by the Second Defendant for Adjournment of the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings should be adjourned because the second defendant had appealed to the Legal Aid Review Committee from a refusal of legal aid.' 'Whether the appeal fell within the exception in s 57(b) of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 as not bona fide, frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise intended to improperly hinder or improperly delay the conduct of the proceedings.' 'Whether, in any event, the Court should exercise its discretion to adjourn the contempt motion to allow the second defendant to seek representation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the second defendant's dilatoriness, the Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Legal Aid Review Committee appeal was excluded by s 57(b). The Court therefore granted the adjournment, and would in any event have done so in the exercise of discretion because the contempt motion was very serious and the second defendant was pursuing possible sources of representation.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted of application to punish for contempt; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["The second defendant's application that the motion be adjourned from 27 October 2004 was granted." 'The matter was to be placed back in the Expedition List early in December with a view to receiving a new fixture.' 'The costs of the application were reserved.']