Ghosh v Newton (No 3)
[2024] FCA 897
•1 August 2024
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ghosh v Newton (No 3) [2024] FCA 897
File number: NSD 408 of 2024 Judgment of: JACKMAN J Date of judgment: 1 August 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to adjourn hearing – where defaults in procedural timetable – application dismissed Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 6 Date of hearing: 1 August 2024 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Neggo Solicitor for the Respondent: Stacks Law Firm ORDERS
NSD 408 of 2024 BETWEEN: DR RATNA GHOSH
Applicant
AND: SCOTT NEWTON
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JACKMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 AUGUST 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Dr Ghosh’s adjournment application be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcriptJACKMAN J:
The applicant, Dr Ghosh, applies for an adjournment of the hearing of her application filed on 10 April 2024 and wishes to proceed with an application for interlocutory relief today. On 7 May 2024, I made a timetable for the preparation of the matter for hearing today, which included orders that the applicant file and serve any further evidence by 31 May 2024, with the respondent to file and serve any evidence by 17 June 2024, and the applicant to file and serve any evidence in reply by 1 July 2024. There then followed some directions for the service of written submissions by the applicant by 1 July 2024, by the respondent by 15 July 2024, and by the applicant in reply by 29 July 2024.
I also made an order referring the applicant to the pro bono solicitor panel pursuant to r 4.12(1) of the Federal Court Rules. Pursuant to that order, Corrs Chambers Westgarth sent an email to my associate on 27 June 2024, indicating that they had agreed to accept the referral to assist the applicant. The Court is grateful to that firm for the generosity and public spiritedness which they showed by accepting that referral. For reasons which are not disclosed in the evidence, it appears that on about 15 July 2024, Dr Ghosh terminated the engagement of that firm as her solicitors.
In the meantime, in their email of 27 June 2024, Corrs Chambers Westgarth indicated that the parties had agreed to vary the timetable for the filing and service of evidence and submissions, and attached an agreed form of order. Those orders were not, in fact, made, but the parties appear to have proceeded on the basis that the agreed variations to the orders would be effective. Those orders required the applicant to file and serve any further evidence by 1 July, with the respondent to file and serve any further evidence by 8 July 2024, and any evidence in reply by the applicant to be filed by 15 July 2024.
The proposed variations to the timetable also contemplated that the applicant would file and serve its written submissions by 15 July 2024, and the respondent would file and serve their submissions by 22 July 2024. In fact, some written submissions were filed by the applicant several days after that proposed timetable, namely on about 18 July 2024, and the respondent filed its written submissions on about 29 July 2024. The parties on both sides have filed evidence outside the timeframes which were agreed. However, I do not regard the affidavits which have been filed out of time as being so significant that they would themselves require an adjournment.
Dr Ghosh says that she engaged some other lawyers after the termination of the engagement with Corrs Chambers Westgarth, but that they withdrew yesterday, and she has been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent her today. It appears that Dr Ghosh has spoken to a barrister who says that he is able to appear on the instructions of a solicitor if one is engaged but is unable to appear today. Another law firm, SLF Lawyers, was engaged by Dr Ghosh at a previous stage of the proceedings, and they briefed Ms Castle of counsel to appear before me on an interlocutory application on 17 May 2024. Dr Ghosh says that this is a complicated matter as to which she needs legal assistance, that she has had insufficient time to prepare the matter, and that she is not in a fit state to represent herself today. To my observation, there is nothing in Dr Ghosh’s demeanour which would indicate that she is not in a fit state to represent herself today.
I do not regard the various defaults in the timetable as sufficient grounds to justify an adjournment. The Court has set aside the day to hear this matter on a final basis, together with the various outstanding interlocutory applications which Dr Ghosh has filed, and in my view, it is in the interests of the public that the court proceed to hear the matter, having set aside resources for that purpose. It should also be noted that Mr Neggo of counsel has been briefed to appear to deal with the application and any interlocutory applications today, and I do not regard it as being in the interests of the parties overall that the matter be adjourned to another date to be fixed. Accordingly, I refuse Dr Ghosh’s adjournment application.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman. Associate:
Dated: 9 August 2024
0
0
0