In the matter of Teppanyakki Pty Ltd

Teppanyakki Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, filed an application to vacate the hearing date of an action against two defendants, due to the non-production of relevant documents by the defendants. The second defendant also failed to appear for examination. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought an order for the production of the documents and for the second defendant's attendance for examination. The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's application to vacate the hearing date should be granted and if the court should order the production of the relevant documents and the second defendant's attendance for examination.

The court considered the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and found that the plaintiff had not acted with due diligence in ensuring the production of the relevant documents and the second defendant's attendance for examination. The court noted that the defendants had been given multiple opportunities to provide the documents and attend for examination, but had failed to do so. The court concluded that the plaintiff's application to vacate the hearing date should be dismissed, and that the plaintiff should be ordered to pay costs to the defendants for the wasted appearance. The court also found that the plaintiff's application for an order for production of relevant documents and for the second defendant's attendance for examination should be refused, as the plaintiff had not acted with due diligence.

The court ordered that the hearing date remain as scheduled, and that the plaintiff pay costs to the defendants for the wasted appearance. The court further ordered that the plaintiff bear the costs of the application to vacate the hearing date, and that the second defendant be ordered to attend for examination and produce the relevant documents within 14 days of the court's order. The court emphasised the importance of parties acting with due diligence in the production of documents and attendance for examination, and warned that failure to do so may result in adverse consequences, including the imposition of costs.