Tasoulas v Tasoulas (No 1) [2018] NSWCA 225

Tasoulas v Tasoulas (No 1) [2018] NSWCA 225

The hearing date should not be vacated because there was no basis to think the appellant would obtain representation for a future hearing, the appellant appeared unable to pay the respondent's costs of the day if the hearing were vacated, no material had been provided to support any application to adduce further evidence, and continuation of the proceedings imposed a burden on the respondent; consistently with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), vacation of the hearing was not appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Vacate Hearing Date
Outcome
Application for vacation of hearing date dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'lack of Legal Representation' 'costs of Vacated Hearing' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'personal and Financial Burden on Respondent']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Proceedings' 'appeals'] ['application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'lack of Legal Representation' 'costs of Vacated Hearing' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'personal and Financial Burden on Respondent']

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

Civil Appeal / Application to Vacate Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal hearing date should be vacated because the appellant lacked legal representation.' 'Whether there was any basis to think legal representation would be available at a future hearing if the hearing were vacated.' "Whether the appellant could meet the respondent's costs of the day if the hearing were vacated." 'Whether any material had been provided that could support an application to call further evidence on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing date should not be vacated because there was no basis to think the appellant would obtain representation for a future hearing, the appellant appeared unable to pay the respondent's costs of the day if the hearing were vacated, no material had been provided to support any application to adduce further evidence, and continuation of the proceedings imposed a burden on the respondent; consistently with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), vacation of the hearing was not appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for vacation of hearing date dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for vacation of the hearing date is dismissed.']