Mao v AMP Superannuation Ltd; Mao v BT Funds Management Ltd (No. 4) [2016] NSWSC 722

Mao v AMP Superannuation Ltd; Mao v BT Funds Management Ltd (No. 4) [2016] NSWSC 722

Although dismissal of the Plaintiff's recusal application for non-appearance was open, a stay of the extant Equity Division applications was preferable because the Plaintiff was a litigant in person previously found to be under a legal incapacity, the stay would not finally determine the applications, it would avoid further costs caused by appearances when the Plaintiff did not attend, and any party could apply to lift the stay. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of the day because her application was listed for hearing but did not proceed due to her absence and she did not inform the Defendants' legal representatives that she would not attend.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Procedural and Interlocutory Ruling / Hearing Listed for the Plaintiff's Application That Hallen J Recuse Himself; Plaintiff Did Not Appear; Court Considered Stay and Costs After Remittal From the Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Extant applications in the Equity Division stayed; Plaintiff ordered to pay each Defendant's costs of the day.
Legal Topics
['recusal' 'stay of Proceedings' 'litigant in Person' 'legal Incapacity' 'appointment of Tutor' 'non Appearance' 'costs']
['courts and Judges' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['recusal' 'stay of Proceedings' 'litigant in Person' 'legal Incapacity' 'appointment of Tutor' 'non Appearance' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Division Procedural and Interlocutory Ruling / Hearing Listed for the Plaintiff's Application That Hallen J Recuse Himself; Plaintiff Did Not Appear; Court Considered Stay and Costs After Remittal From the Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff's application for Hallen J to recuse himself should be dismissed when the Plaintiff did not appear at the listed hearing." 'Whether the extant applications in the Equity Division should be stayed under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the Plaintiff should pay the Defendants' costs of the day."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although dismissal of the Plaintiff's recusal application for non-appearance was open, a stay of the extant Equity Division applications was preferable because the Plaintiff was a litigant in person previously found to be under a legal incapacity, the stay would not finally determine the applications, it would avoid further costs caused by appearances when the Plaintiff did not attend, and any party could apply to lift the stay. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of the day because her application was listed for hearing but did not proceed due to her absence and she did not inform the Defendants' legal representatives that she would not attend.

Court Disposition

Extant applications in the Equity Division stayed; Plaintiff ordered to pay each Defendant's costs of the day.

Orders

  • ["Orders pursuant to s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act, that the extant applications, in the Equity Division, be stayed until such time as any party makes such application in this Division, as she, or it, wishes to make, including one for the hearing of the Plaintiff's application to have me recuse myself, or for the...