Hurst-Meyers v Hoy (No 3)

The case of Hurst-Meyers v Hoy (No 3) involved an appeal by Ralph George Noel Nancy Hurst-Meyers and RHM Industries Pty Ltd against a decision of the ACT Supreme Court. The primary dispute before the Court of Appeal concerned an application by the appellant, Mr Hurst-Meyers, to adjourn the appeal proceedings due to a medical condition. The respondent, Gavin Robert Hoy, opposed the adjournment.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether to grant the appellant's oral application for an adjournment of the appeal proceedings until after 31 October 2022, and consequently, how to manage the preparation of the appeal books in light of the appellant's stated inability to comply with the established timetable due to his medical condition. The court was required to balance the appellant's health concerns against the respondent's right to have the appeal heard and determined without undue delay, and the practicalities of preparing the necessary court documents.

The court declined to grant the adjournment as sought by the appellant. While acknowledging the appellant's medical condition, evidenced by a certificate detailing a recent heart attack and a recommendation to avoid stress, the court found that the limited work required to prepare Appeal Book A would likely cause substantial delay to the hearing date if left to the appellant. The court reasoned that compelling the appellant to undertake this work carried a significant risk of adverse health effects or non-compliance. Therefore, to avoid further delay and prejudice to the respondent, the court ordered the respondent to prepare Appeal Book A by a specified date, reserving the costs associated with this task. The court also made directions regarding transcript corrections and listed the matter for further directions.