Freehill Hollingdale & Page v Bandwill Pty Ltd

Freehill Hollingdale & Page brought a claim against Bandwill Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged breaches of contract and deceit. The defendant filed an application to stay the proceedings on the grounds that they were being maintained unlawfully and in a champertous manner. The application was adjourned by the trial judge without a ruling. Freehill Hollingdale & Page appealed the adjournment, arguing that the trial judge was required to decide the stay application immediately. They contended that the trial judge had both a discretion and a duty to stay proceedings that appeared to be unlawfully maintained and champertous.

The court considered whether the trial judge had a discretion or a duty to decide the stay application without delay. The court found that, while the trial judge does have a discretion to manage proceedings, there is also a duty to promptly address applications that challenge the court's jurisdiction or the lawfulness of the proceedings. The court held that the trial judge's decision to adjourn the stay application was not a proper exercise of discretion, as it did not consider the urgency and importance of the matter. The court noted that the trial judge should have either ruled on the application or provided clear reasons for the adjournment.

The appeal was allowed, and the stay application was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of promptly addressing jurisdictional challenges and applications that question the lawfulness of proceedings. The trial judge was instructed to review the stay application and make a decision, providing clear reasons for any decision to adjourn.