Dye v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2012] NSWCA 206

Dye v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2012] NSWCA 206

The motion was dismissed because the applicant had not taken steps to secure representation after the hearing date was fixed, there was no indication her position would change in the short term, there had already been substantial delays, and an adjournment would cause unacceptable injustice and additional expense to the Bank.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Motion to Adjourn Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Motion to adjourn application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant to pay the Respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs' 'self Represented Litigant']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs' 'self Represented Litigant']

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

Interlocutory Application / Motion to Adjourn Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing of the application for leave to appeal set down for 2 July 2012 should be adjourned to a future date because the applicant was unrepresented.' 'Whether further delay and prejudice to the Bank justified refusing the adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the applicant had not taken steps to secure representation after the hearing date was fixed, there was no indication her position would change in the short term, there had already been substantial delays, and an adjournment would cause unacceptable injustice and additional expense to the Bank.

Court Disposition

Motion to adjourn application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant to pay the Respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['Motion to adjourn application for leave to appeal dismissed.' "Applicant to pay the Respondents' costs."]