Curtin v University of New South Wales (No. 1) [2008] NSWSC 1234

Curtin v University of New South Wales (No. 1) [2008] NSWSC 1234

The adjournment was refused because the Plaintiff had not raised any intention to appeal Malpass AsJ's decision before or during the lengthy strike-out hearing, despite that decision being central to the arguments; the time to appeal as of right had expired in mid-July; s.56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 favoured proceeding to judgment rather than delaying; and deferring the application would be inconsistent with the efficient conduct of the proceedings and the Court's obligations to other litigants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Plaintiff's Application for Adjournment After Hearing of Defendants' Notice of Motion to Revoke Leave to Amend or Strike Out Parts of the Amended Statement of Claim, Before Delivery of Oral Judgment
Outcome
Application for adjournment is refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'amended Pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'leave to Appeal' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'amended Pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'leave to Appeal' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings']

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

Procedural and Other Rulings / Plaintiff's Application for Adjournment After Hearing of Defendants' Notice of Motion to Revoke Leave to Amend or Strike Out Parts of the Amended Statement of Claim, Before Delivery of Oral Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should defer giving reasons and adjourn the proceedings so that the Plaintiff's application for extension of time to appeal from the decision of Malpass AsJ could be considered together with the strike-out issues argued on 1 September 2008." "Whether s.56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 supported the Plaintiff's request for adjournment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the Plaintiff had not raised any intention to appeal Malpass AsJ's decision before or during the lengthy strike-out hearing, despite that decision being central to the arguments; the time to appeal as of right had expired in mid-July; s.56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 favoured proceeding to judgment rather than delaying; and deferring the application would be inconsistent with the efficient conduct of the proceedings and the Court's obligations to other litigants.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for adjournment is refused.']