Eedra Zey (formerly using the litigation pseudonym Eva Williams) v State of New South Wales

The case of Eedra Zey (formerly using the litigation pseudonym Eva Williams) v State of New South Wales involved the plaintiff's non-appearance at a hearing of her notice of motion, filed on 22 April 2024. The plaintiff's continued non-engagement with the litigation requirements was purported to be explained by medical certificates, but these were deemed insufficient by the court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff had previously sought a non-publication order, which was revoked after she failed to respond to a notice requiring her to show cause why it should remain in force. The circumstances suggested that any request for judicial recusal should be made formally.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's medical certificates were sufficient to justify her non-appearance and whether the revocation of the non-publication order was appropriate. Additionally, the court examined the litigation conduct of both parties. The plaintiff's lack of engagement with the proceedings and her failure to respond to the notice regarding the non-publication order raised concerns about the necessity of a formal application for judicial recusal. The court also considered whether remedial case management orders were appropriate in light of these issues.

The court found the medical certificates to be insufficient, noting that they did not adequately explain the plaintiff's lack of engagement. The non-publication order was revoked due to the plaintiff's failure to respond to the notice. The court observed that a formal application for judicial recusal should be made if necessary, and it made several case management orders to address the plaintiff's ongoing non-compliance with the litigation requirements. These orders aimed to ensure that the case could proceed fairly and efficiently.

The court made specific dispositive and case management orders. The non-publication order was revoked, and the plaintiff was required to formally apply for judicial recusal if she wished to pursue that matter. Additionally, the court ordered the plaintiff to engage with the litigation process more effectively and to provide adequate explanations for any future non-appearances or delays. These orders were intended to manage the case in a manner that balanced the rights of both parties and ensured the efficient use of court resources.