Drabsch v SGI & Ors [2000] NSWSC 489

Drabsch v SGI & Ors [2000] NSWSC 489

Although the defendants' application was late and their change of position caused wasted costs, the Orford affidavit went to the heart of the issues, the defendants' indemnity position was serious, and the proposed cross-claims would raise many of the same questions, creating a risk of duplicated proceedings and inconsistent findings. The discretion was therefore exercised to grant the adjournment, with the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application and costs thrown away on an indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Concerning a Superannuation Fund Claim / Defendants' Application for Adjournment of the Trial Before Final Submissions
Outcome
Adjournment granted.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Trial' 'costs Thrown Away' 'indemnity Costs' 'overriding Purpose of Supreme Court Rules' 'cross Claims']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['adjournment of Trial' 'costs Thrown Away' 'indemnity Costs' 'overriding Purpose of Supreme Court Rules' 'cross Claims']

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

Equity Division Proceedings Concerning a Superannuation Fund Claim / Defendants' Application for Adjournment of the Trial Before Final Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' late application for adjournment should be granted." "Whether late evidence concerning calculation of the plaintiff's superannuation entitlement and issues about indemnity and proposed cross-claims justified adjourning the trial." 'What costs order should be made if the adjournment were granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendants' application was late and their change of position caused wasted costs, the Orford affidavit went to the heart of the issues, the defendants' indemnity position was serious, and the proposed cross-claims would raise many of the same questions, creating a risk of duplicated proceedings and inconsistent findings. The discretion was therefore exercised to grant the adjournment, with the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application and costs thrown away on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted.

Orders

  • ["The defendants' application for adjournment of the trial was granted." 'Monday, 30 October to Friday, 3 November 2000 inclusive was fixed for the continuation of the trial.' "The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for the adjournment and costs thrown away by the adjournment on...