Llorente v Marshell Bodyguard & Security Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 1192

Llorente v Marshell Bodyguard & Security Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 1192

The Court granted only a one-week adjournment because the affidavit relied on by the respondents appeared to suffer substantive defects in execution and jurat, making it unfair to proceed without allowing an opportunity to put on regular evidence, but the need for expedition before the fixed hearing meant a four-week adjournment was not appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in a Claim Under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (nsw) / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application for security for costs adjourned for one week, with the respondent ordered to pay costs thrown away by the adjournment.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'affidavit Evidence' 'oaths' 'defective Jurat' 'adjournment']
['costs' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'affidavit Evidence' 'oaths' 'defective Jurat' 'adjournment']

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

Application for Security for Costs in a Claim Under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (nsw) / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an affidavit was executed in compliance with the Oaths Act 1900 (NSW) where a solicitor administered the oath from New South Wales while the deponent was in the Republic of Columbia communicating via social media.' 'Whether the jurat was defective where the deponent was a native Spanish-speaker, the affidavit was entirely in English, and there was no evidence identifying an interpreter or that the interpreter took an appropriate oath.' 'Whether the application for security for costs should be adjourned to permit the respondents to put on regular evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted only a one-week adjournment because the affidavit relied on by the respondents appeared to suffer substantive defects in execution and jurat, making it unfair to proceed without allowing an opportunity to put on regular evidence, but the need for expedition before the fixed hearing meant a four-week adjournment was not appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs adjourned for one week, with the respondent ordered to pay costs thrown away by the adjournment.

Orders

  • ['The application for security for costs is adjourned to be listed before the Registrar at 9 am on 8 September 2017 for reference to the Duty Judge if otherwise ready.' 'The respondent is to pay the costs thrown away by reason of this adjournment.']