Grizonic v Suttor - [2008] NSWSC 912

CITATION: Grizonic v Suttor [2008] NSWSC 912

HEARING DATE(S): 2 May 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Expedition List

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 2 May 2008

DECISION: Final hearing of proceeding adjourned to 3 and 4 July 2008.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – application by plaintiff to adjourn final hearing on day appointed for hearing – where plaintiff is unrepresented – where plaintiff claims to be in the process of sourcing legal representation – where proceeding has had protracted history.

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

PARTIES: 6141/03 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Suzanne Ranken Suttor (first defendant)
Find a Flat Pty Ltd (second defendant)
2475/05 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Geoffrey McDonald (first defendant)
Paul Leroy (second defendant)
Suzanne Suttor (third defendant)
1960/08 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Suzanne Ranken Suttor (first defendant)
Rodney Ranken Suttor (second defendant)
Find a Flat Pty Ltd (third defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6141/03; 2475/05; 1960/08

COUNSEL: Mr C Grizonic (in person) (plaintiff)
Mr A Jungwirth (D1,2 in 6141/03), (D3 in 2475/05), (D1, 2, 3 in 1960/08)

SOLICITORS: Mr Mark Gallego (D1,2 in 6141/03), (D3 in 2475/05), (D1, 2, 3 in 1960/08)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EXPEDITION LIST

BRERETON J

Friday 2 May 2008

6141/03 Claudio Grizonic v Suzanne Ranken Suttor & 1 Or
2475/05 Claudio Grizonic v Geoffrey McDonald & 2 Ors
20002/05 Claudio Grizonic v Suzanne Ranken Suttor & 1 Or

JUDGMENT (ex tempore)

1 HIS HONOUR: Mrs Wade – who, by leave, has been assisting Mr Grizonic as his McKenzie friend – contacted my Associate by email on 28 April 2008 and advised that she was unable to represent, or present Mr Grizonic's case, today. She claimed to have discovered “crucial evidence that should be relied on with regard to all points to be determined” today. She said that she was “legally out of her depth” – a not inaccurate observation – and that she was seeking an adjournment to enable Mr Grizonic to be legally represented. She envisaged being able to fund the law firm Horton Rhodes, with whom she and Mr Grizonic have discussed the matter, and who have apparently indicated that they would be happy to represent him as soon as placed in funds, and sought an adjournment for 8 to 10 weeks for that purpose.

2 At my direction, my Associate then informed both parties that I would only be prepared to consider an adjournment on the grounds foreshadowed if there were written or oral evidence from a lawyer indicating that he or she would be prepared to act, and if that preparedness was conditional on being put in funds, evidence from whomever was to provide the funds as to how and when they would be provided.

3 On 30 April 2008, Ms Wade forwarded by facsimile a letter to my Associate, asserting that she was negotiating to sell part of a plantation in New Guinea to Harmony Gold; that she anticipated that contracts would be exchanged within the next 10 days, with settlement within four weeks; and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Grizonic v Suttor

Details

AGLC: Grizonic v Suttor [2008] NSWSC 912
Case: [2008] NSWSC 912
Decision Date: 2 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grizonic v Suttor involved an application by the plaintiff to adjourn the final hearing of the matter on the day appointed for hearing. The plaintiff, who was unrepresented, claimed to be in the process of sourcing legal representation. The matter had a protracted history, with numerous procedural issues and delays. The application was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's application to adjourn the final hearing should be granted. The court had to consider the plaintiff's lack of representation, the length of time the matter had been proceeding, and the plaintiff's assertion that they were in the process of obtaining legal representation. The court also needed to balance the plaintiff's right to be heard with the need for the efficient administration of justice.

In determining the application, the court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that they were in the process of sourcing legal representation. The court noted that the plaintiff had not provided any documentation or other evidence to substantiate their claim, and that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to obtain legal representation. The court further found that the plaintiff's lack of representation was not a sufficient ground to grant an adjournment, particularly given the protracted history of the matter. The court held that the application should be refused, and that the final hearing would proceed as scheduled.

The court's final orders were that the application to adjourn the final hearing be refused. The final hearing proceeded as scheduled, and the court heard evidence from both parties before delivering its judgment. The court found in favour of the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Orders