Majak v Rose (No 6) [2017] NSWCA 262

Majak v Rose (No 6) [2017] NSWCA 262

The application to vacate the hearing date was refused because no mistake or valid reason was shown, counsel availability was not guaranteed for any specific future date, the applicant had time to brief alternative counsel, and the public interest in efficient court administration outweighed any disadvantage to the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Zofia Majak; Respondent: Alan Rose
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Hearing, Application to Vacate Hearing Date
Civil Procedure Adjournment of Hearing Application to Vacate Hearing Date

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zofia Majak

Applicant

Alan Rose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing date for the applicant's review application should be vacated and adjourned to a later date

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vacate the hearing date was refused because no mistake or valid reason was shown, counsel availability was not guaranteed for any specific future date, the applicant had time to brief alternative counsel, and the public interest in efficient court administration outweighed any disadvantage to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's notice of motion dated 13 October 2017 is dismissed.