Penson v Titan National Pty Limited [2015] NSWCA 382

Penson v Titan National Pty Limited [2015] NSWCA 382

The delay in service of the respondents' submissions, although regrettable, did not come close to satisfying the heavy burden required to vacate an imminent hearing date. The late-served motion concerning notices to produce also did not justify vacating the hearing, because Ms Penson regarded the notices as spent, the respondents regarded them as irrelevant, and the motion was said not to unduly disrupt the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to Vacate Imminent Hearing / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion Filed 30 November 2015
Outcome
Notice of motion filed 30 November 2015 dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'adjournment' 'ex Parte Application' 'notices to Produce']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'adjournment' 'ex Parte Application' 'notices to Produce']

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 to Vacate Imminent Hearing / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion Filed 30 November 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing listed for 3 December 2015 should be vacated or adjourned by about two weeks because of delay in service of respondents' submissions." "Whether late receipt of the respondents' notice of motion and voluminous materials concerning notices to produce warranted vacating the imminent hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in service of the respondents' submissions, although regrettable, did not come close to satisfying the heavy burden required to vacate an imminent hearing date. The late-served motion concerning notices to produce also did not justify vacating the hearing, because Ms Penson regarded the notices as spent, the respondents regarded them as irrelevant, and the motion was said not to unduly disrupt the hearing.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion filed 30 November 2015 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion filed 30 November 2015 be dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.']