Ellis v Marshall [2006] NSWSC 89

Ellis v Marshall [2006] NSWSC 89

There was no good reason for the lack of timely notice to the plaintiff about the hearing date or for making holiday bookings after the hearing date was fixed. Efficient case management and adherence to allocated hearing dates are necessary for the just and efficient disposal of court business. The application was declined.

Parties
Plaintiff: Susan Vaughan Ellis; Defendant: Janette Marshall
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Equity Proceeding / Application to Vacate Hearing Date
Outcome
Application declined.
Legal Topics
Application to Vacate Hearing Date, Court Timetabling, Civil Procedure Act 2005
Civil Procedure Application to Vacate Hearing Date Court Timetabling Civil Procedure Act 2005

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Vaughan Ellis

Plaintiff

Janette Marshall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Supreme Court Equity Proceeding / Application to Vacate Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the court vacate the allocated hearing date on the basis of the plaintiff's pre-booked overseas holiday, arranged after the hearing date was fixed?

Ratio Decidendi

There was no good reason for the lack of timely notice to the plaintiff about the hearing date or for making holiday bookings after the hearing date was fixed. Efficient case management and adherence to allocated hearing dates are necessary for the just and efficient disposal of court business. The application was declined.

Court Disposition

Application declined.

Orders

  • Application to vacate hearing date declined.