Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1726
Hearing dates: 16 November 2015
Decision date: 16 November 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
Decline the plaintiff’s application for an adjournment

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment of hearing pending the convening of a Court of Appeal – application refused - no question of principle
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Lili Chel (Plaintiff)
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Vanda Carson (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Rasmussen (Plaintiff)
T Blackburn SC/L Barnett (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Beazley Boorman Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Banki Haddock Fiora Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2011/409423

Judgment (EX TEMPORE – REVISED)

The plaintiff has applied for an adjournment of these proceedings until 10 o'clock on Wednesday, 18 November 2015.
The plaintiff has this afternoon approached Macfarlan JA, for the Court of Appeal to be convened to consider whether leave to appeal against my decision made today to refuse the plaintiff's application for trial by jury ought be granted.
Mr Rasmussen submitted that the reason Macfarlan JA could not give a decision until 3pm tomorrow is because of a personal commitment and that tomorrow could be usefully employed by the parties in narrowing the issues and, to use his expression, "getting the plaintiff's house in order", in order that the plaintiff could, once again to quote his words, "kick off on Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock".
These proceedings were allocated a hearing date in April of this year. But for Mr Rasmussen's indisposition they would have begun on 9 November 2015. I would have thought that if the plaintiff's house were ever to be in order it would be in order by now.
Accordingly I decline the plaintiff's application for an adjournment and note that the Court of Appeal did not grant a stay this afternoon, although one was sought on behalf of the plaintiff.
As it is now 4.45pm, I will adjourn the Court until 10 o’clock in the morning at which time I would expect the plaintiff’s case to be conducted as expeditiously as possible.

Order

I make the following order:

Decline the plaintiff’s application for an adjournment.

***************

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3) involved the applicant, Chel, who sought an adjournment of a hearing pending the convening of a Court of Appeal. The applicant, Chel, was involved in a defamation case against Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited, which had already been subject to two appeals. The applicant sought the adjournment to allow the Court of Appeal to hear an application to determine whether the first appeal was determined on the correct basis. The application was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over the matter due to the federal nature of the defamation claim.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the application for an adjournment pending the convening of the Court of Appeal should be granted. The court needed to balance the applicant's need for a fair hearing against the principles of finality and the efficient administration of justice. The court also needed to consider whether there was a question of principle involved that warranted the adjournment.

The court found that there was no question of principle involved in the application, and therefore, the application for an adjournment should be refused. The court emphasised that the principles of finality and the efficient administration of justice were paramount in such cases. The court noted that the applicant had already had the opportunity to appeal the decision and that there were no new or exceptional circumstances that would justify an adjournment. The court concluded that the application should be refused as there was no compelling reason to adjourn the hearing.

The court's final order was that the application for an adjournment pending the convening of the Court of Appeal be refused. The court did not see any basis for the adjournment and upheld the importance of finality in legal proceedings. The refusal of the application was based on the absence of a question of principle and the need to maintain the efficiency of the judicial process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1726
Hearing dates:	16 November 2015
Decision date:	16 November 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Adamson J
Decision:	Decline the plaintiff’s application for an adjournment
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment of hearing pending the convening of a Court of Appeal – application refused - no question of principle
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Lili Chel (Plaintiff) Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (First Defendant) Vanda Carson (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: R Rasmussen (Plaintiff) T Blackburn SC/L Barnett (Defendants) Solicitors: Beazley Boorman Lawyers (Plaintiff) Banki Haddock Fiora Lawyers (Defendants)
File Number(s):	2011/409423