Ekes v Hyde Page (No 3)

[2019] NSWCA 179

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Ekes v Hyde Page (No 3) [2019] NSWCA 179
Hearing dates:	9 July 2019
Date of orders:	09 July 2019
Decision date:	09 July 2019
Before:	Bell P at [1]; Payne JA at [6]
Decision:	Application for adjournment refused.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court of Appeal – application for leave to appeal – application for adjournment – application refused
Legislation Cited:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 471B Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(n)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Paul Ekes (Applicant) GHS Safety Products Australia Pty Limited (in liq) (First Respondent) John Hyde Page (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: T Wong (Applicant) J Hyde Page (Second Respondent)   Solicitors: Gardner Ekes Lawyers (Applicant)
File Number(s):	2019/00193026
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity – Corporations List Citation: [2019] NSWSC 668 Date of Decision: 6 June 2019 Before: Rees J File Number(s): 2018/00387725

Judgment – EX TEMPORE

[Amended in accordance with the principles in Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123 at [194]]

1. BELL P: This matter was listed for hearing on a summons for leave to appeal at 10.15 this morning. The case has previously been case managed by Judge of Appeal, namely, Payne JA, who had previously sought confirmation as to the completeness and contents of the material which was to be before the Court on this application for leave to appeal. The matter came on for hearing this morning.

2. An application for leave to proceed was made by Ms Wong on behalf of Mr Paul Ekes, pursuant to s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and s 101(2)(n) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). About 20 minutes into her submissions Ms Wong was instructed to seek an adjournment of 14 days to seek to supplement the material before the Court.

3. No satisfactory explanation, in my opinion, has been given for the making of the application, particularly in circumstances where the case had previously been case managed and the adequacy of the material to be before the Court had been raised and confirmation had been sought and as I understand it, provided that there was no intention or need to supplement the material in the white book.

4. The Court of Appeal is a busy court which sets aside time in advance of hearings to prepare themselves, that is so the Justices, to prepare for the hearing of applications and it is quite unsatisfactory, particularly in a case which has been closely case managed such as this one, to begin it and then seek, without good reason, a further adjournment.

5. In those circumstances, in my opinion, the oral application for an adjournment should be refused.

6. PAYNE JA: I agree with the President.

**********

Decision last updated: 19 July 2019