Ian David Menzies & Anor v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd ACN 005 592 049

IAN DAVID MENZIES & ANOR
v
PACCAR FINANCIAL PTY LTD ACN 005 592 049
[2015] HCASL 42
S232/2014

The respondent commenced proceedings against the applicants seeking, inter alia, judgment for moneys allegedly owing under a guarantee and indemnity executed by the applicants ("the Paccar proceedings"). The Paccar proceedings, and separate proceedings commenced by the applicants against the respondent ("the Menzies proceedings"), were listed to be heard together by the Supreme Court of New South Wales over five days, commencing on 13 May 2013.
On the first day of that hearing, the first applicant applied for an adjournment of the Paccar and Menzies proceedings ("the adjournment application"). The primary judge (Harrison AsJ) refused that application. The Paccar and Menzies proceedings continued in the applicants' absence. On 13 June 2013, the primary judge gave judgment for the respondent in the Paccar proceedings, and dismissed the Menzies proceedings. Immediately before delivering judgment in those proceedings, the primary judge refused an application by the applicants to reopen the hearing ("the rehearing application").
The applicants appealed from all the abovementioned orders to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Emmett and Leeming JJA and Sackville AJA) on the ground that the primary judge erred in refusing the adjournment application and the rehearing application. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had acted in accordance with settled principles and took into account all relevant considerations in refusing the adjournment application and the rehearing application. The Court also held that the grounds relating to the substantive judgment had not been made out.
The applicants now seek special leave to appeal to this Court. The application seeks to agitate questions of practice and procedure. The principles informing the exercise of discretion are settled. In addition, an appeal to this Court would enjoy insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Special leave is refused.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
9 April 2015 P.A. Keane

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Ian David Menzies and another, sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales that refused their application for an adjournment and a rehearing of proceedings brought by the respondent, Paccar Financial Pty Ltd. The proceedings involved a guarantee and indemnity executed by the applicants, and separate proceedings initiated by the applicants against the respondent. The primary judge had already refused an application for an adjournment and a subsequent application to reopen the hearing. The applicants' appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the primary judge had correctly exercised his discretion in refusing the applications, and that the substantive judgment was not flawed.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicants should be granted special leave to appeal against the refusal of their applications for an adjournment and a rehearing by the Court of Appeal. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the exercise of discretion by the primary judge. They also contended that there were errors in the substantive judgment. The High Court considered the settled principles governing the exercise of discretion in such matters, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, and the prospects of success of the proposed appeal.

The High Court found that the principles guiding the exercise of discretion in granting adjournments and rehearings were well established and that the Court of Appeal had appropriately applied these principles. The Court of Appeal had correctly evaluated all relevant considerations in its decision and found no error in the substantive judgment. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the applicants' appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the settled legal principles in such matters.

The High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal. Pursuant to the relevant rules, the Registrar was directed to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. This decision underscores the High Court's cautious approach to granting special leave in cases involving settled principles of procedural fairness and discretion.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established