Gillies v State of New South Wales (No.4)

In the matter of Gillies v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff sought an extension of time to comply with a previous order that submissions be served by a specified date. The defendant opposed this application, arguing that the plaintiff's failure to meet the initial deadline caused prejudice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff's application was for an extension of time to serve their submissions, despite having previously failed to adhere to a set deadline. The defendant contested the application, asserting that the plaintiff's non-compliance with the original order prejudiced their ability to prepare a response. Additionally, the plaintiff sought an order to record a future hearing, alleging that an unauthorised transcript amendment had occurred previously. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application for an extension of time was justified and whether it would cause any prejudice to the defendant. The court also needed to assess the appropriateness of the plaintiff's request to record the future hearing.

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to meet the initial deadline did not result in any prejudice to the defendant, as the overall timeline of the proceedings could be appropriately extended. The court noted that the plaintiff's non-compliance with the original order did not significantly impact the defendant's ability to prepare a response. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for an extension of time. However, regarding the plaintiff's request to record the future hearing, the court held that it was inappropriate to make an administrative order of the kind sought by the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff's allegation of an unauthorised transcript amendment did not warrant such an order, as it did not serve the dictates of justice. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for a recording order was denied.