Chandrasekaran v Navaratnem - [2021] NSWSC 1446

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chandrasekaran v Navaratnem [2021] NSWSC 1446
Hearing dates: 09 November 2021
Date of orders: 09 November 2021
Decision date: 09 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1)   Vacate the hearing of the defendant's Notice of Motion filed 11 December 2019 today.
(2)   Order that any further determination of the Motion take place on the papers and in Chambers.
(3)   Direct that, if the plaintiff wishes to file any further submissions in opposition to the relief sought in the defendant's Notice of Motion, then any such submissions should be filed and served by no later than 4pm, 26 November 2021.
(4)   Order the defendant to file and serve any submissions in reply to the plaintiff’s submissions by 4pm, 3 December 2021.
(5)   Upon receipt of the last set of submissions, judgment in this matter will be reserved, and that judgment will be determined on the basis of all the papers which have been filed to date.
(6)   Reserve all questions of costs of and occasioned by the vacation of today's hearing date.
(7)   Grant both parties liberty to apply.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – notice of motion – no appearance by the plaintiff – adjournment – further determination of notice of motion to be dealt with on the papers

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005

Cases Cited:
Chandrasekaran v Navaratnem [2020] NSWSC 95
Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District [2021] NSWSC 920

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Sujatha Chandrasekaran (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Kannan Navaratnem (Defendant/Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
No Appearance (Plaintiff/Respondent)
A Cameron (Defendant/Applicant)
Solicitors:
Clyde & Co Australia (DefendantApplicant)

File Number(s): 2019/260333
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment

The plaintiff, Sujatha Chandrasekaran, commenced proceedings on 21 August 2019 when she filed a Statement of Claim against Kannan Navaratnem. In general terms, the Statement of Claim alleged that the defendant was responsible for the provision of confidential information to others, to the detriment of the plaintiff.
The Statement of Claim claimed damages for a breach of confidence, inducing a breach of contract, unlawful interference in trade, conspiracy and harassment. The statement of claim claimed damages, including aggravated, exemplary, punitive and pecuniary damages, and injunctive relief with respect to ongoing activities.
That Statement of Claim was amended on 14 October 2019. Broadly, claims of the previous kind were maintained, except for a claim relating to harassment, which was removed.
By a Notice of Motion filed on 1 November 2019, the plaintiff sought summary judgment.
On 12 November 2019, the defendant filed a Notice of Appearance to the proceedings, and at the same time filed a Notice of Objection indicating that he, a resident of the United Kingdom, did not consent to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and announced an intention to file an application to dismiss the proceedings.
On 11 December 2019, the defendant filed a Notice of Motion. It sought the following orders:

“1. An order pursuant to r 11.6 of the Uniform Civil…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chandrasekaran v Navaratnem and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWSC 1446
Decision Date: 09 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Chandrasekaran brought an action against Navaratnem for relief in relation to a contract dispute. Navaratnem filed a notice of motion seeking an adjournment of the hearing date. When the matter came before the court, Chandrasekaran did not appear or provide any response to the motion. The court had to determine whether the adjournment should be granted and if the motion could be dealt with on the papers due to the plaintiff's absence.

The court examined the procedural rules and case law to assess the appropriate course of action. It noted that when a plaintiff fails to appear and respond to a motion, the court may still proceed to determine the motion on the papers if it is satisfied that the defendant has a meritorious case and that justice would be served by doing so. The court also considered whether the adjournment was necessary and in the interests of justice.

In deciding the motion, the court found that Navaratnem had a valid reason for seeking an adjournment, and that it was in the interests of justice to grant the adjournment. Given that Chandrasekaran had failed to appear or respond, the court concluded that it was appropriate to determine the motion on the papers. The court granted the adjournment and ordered that the further determination of the notice of motion be dealt with on the papers.

Orders