Foundas v Arambatzis (No. 2)

In *Foundas v Arambatzis (No. 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application to vary certain directions orders previously made by the court. The application was brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Foundas, who sought to alter the timetable for the filing of evidence and submissions in the ongoing proceedings. The defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Arambatzis, opposed the application.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify a variation of the existing directions orders. Specifically, the court had to determine if the reasons advanced by the plaintiff for needing an extension of time constituted a compelling case for departing from the established procedural timetable, particularly in circumstances where no fundamental issue of principle was being raised.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Bell P, Basten and White JJA, ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's application. Their Honours reasoned that the plaintiff had failed to provide adequate justification for the requested alteration to the directions. The court emphasised that directions orders are made to ensure the efficient and orderly progression of litigation, and that variations should only be granted upon a strong showing of necessity or unforeseen circumstances. In this instance, the reasons provided by the plaintiff were found to be insufficient to warrant disturbing the existing timetable, especially as the application did not concern a matter of principle.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal made no order varying the existing directions, meaning the original timetable for the filing of evidence and submissions remained in effect.