Mao v AMP Superannuation Ltd; Mao v BT Funds Management Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 33

Mao v AMP Superannuation Ltd; Mao v BT Funds Management Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 33

Because the plaintiff was found to be under a legal incapacity and no tutor had been appointed, the proceedings could not be carried forward; with no further issues for immediate determination and no willingness by defendants to seek management orders, there was no basis for an adjournment; costs of previous notices of motion were left without order as parties did not seek them.

Parties
Plaintiff: Youhua Mao; Defendant: AMP Superannuation Ltd; Defendant: AMP Life Ltd; Defendant: BT Funds Management Ltd; Defendant: AIA Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Post Trial Procedural Orders—directions Hearing
Outcome
Oral application by the plaintiff for adjournment dismissed; no order as to costs of defendants for prior notices of motion determined on 5 November 2014.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Tutor, Adjournment of Proceedings, Costs, Incapacity, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Appointment of Tutor Adjournment of Proceedings Costs Incapacity Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Youhua Mao

Plaintiff

AMP Superannuation Ltd

Defendant

AMP Life Ltd

Defendant

BT Funds Management Ltd

Defendant

AIA Australia Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Post Trial Procedural Orders—directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the hearing of the matters be adjourned at the plaintiff's request?
  2. 2 Should a declaration be made as to the plaintiff's incapacity and an order made for management of her estate under the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009?
  3. 3 Should orders as to costs be made in relation to previous notices of motion?

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff was found to be under a legal incapacity and no tutor had been appointed, the proceedings could not be carried forward; with no further issues for immediate determination and no willingness by defendants to seek management orders, there was no basis for an adjournment; costs of previous notices of motion were left without order as parties did not seek them.

Court Disposition

Oral application by the plaintiff for adjournment dismissed; no order as to costs of defendants for prior notices of motion determined on 5 November 2014.

Orders

  • The oral application by the Plaintiff to adjourn the hearing of each matter today is dismissed.
  • No order as to the costs of the Defendants in relation to any of the notices of motion determined on 5 November 2014 in each of the proceedings.