Ritch Engineering Pty Ltd v Multico International Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 309

Ritch Engineering Pty Ltd v Multico International Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 309

Due to the importance of essential witnesses who are located outside the jurisdiction and the reasonable steps taken by both parties to secure attendance, it would be unfair to compel the hearing in the absence of a key witness. Accordingly, the hearing date should be vacated and a new date set to allow the parties to procure witness attendance or explore alternative means of obtaining evidence.

Parties
Applicant: Ritch Engineering Pty. Ltd.; Respondent: Multico International Pty. Ltd.; Respondent: Brien Bartholomew Hayes; Respondent: George Kosmos Tetis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 1986
Procedural Posture
Proceedings (civil) / Interlocutory Motion on Vacation of Hearing Date
Outcome
Hearing date (30 June 1986) vacated; new date set for 29 September 1986; respondents to pay applicant's costs of the motion; applicant’s costs thrown away by this order reserved; liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
Vacation of Trial Date, Witness Availability, Evidence From Outside Jurisdiction, Costs
Civil Procedure Vacation of Trial Date Witness Availability Evidence From Outside Jurisdiction Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ritch Engineering Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

Multico International Pty. Ltd.

Respondent

Brien Bartholomew Hayes

Respondent

George Kosmos Tetis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Proceedings (civil) / Interlocutory Motion on Vacation of Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the date fixed for hearing (30 June 1986) should be vacated due to issues concerning attendance of key witnesses from the United Kingdom.

Ratio Decidendi

Due to the importance of essential witnesses who are located outside the jurisdiction and the reasonable steps taken by both parties to secure attendance, it would be unfair to compel the hearing in the absence of a key witness. Accordingly, the hearing date should be vacated and a new date set to allow the parties to procure witness attendance or explore alternative means of obtaining evidence.

Court Disposition

Hearing date (30 June 1986) vacated; new date set for 29 September 1986; respondents to pay applicant's costs of the motion; applicant’s costs thrown away by this order reserved; liberty to apply.

Orders

  • The date fixed to commence the hearing (30 June 1986) is vacated.
  • Respondents shall pay the applicant's costs of the motion.