Kearney v Amirbeaggi (No 2)

In *Kearney v Amirbeaggi (No 2)*, the applicant sought an adjournment of a hearing concerning his application for leave to appeal. The dispute arose in the context of a prolonged proceeding below, where the final hearing had already been postponed twice at the applicant's request due to mental health arguments. The applicant had also failed to file materials for his application for leave to appeal despite court orders. The matter came before Kirk JA in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the applicant's request for an adjournment of his notice of motion, and how to deal with the substantive prayers within that motion, particularly in light of the impending final hearing in the court below. The court also considered the procedural question of whether an application for a concurrent hearing of a leave application and an appeal could be determined by a judge hearing a motion, rather than the President of the Court of Appeal.

Kirk JA refused the adjournment, reasoning that granting it would impose a heavy burden on the parties and interfere with their preparation for the final hearing. The judge noted that the applicant had not yet filed the necessary materials for his leave application, despite previous orders. Regarding the notice of motion, prayers 1 and 2 were dismissed, while prayer 3 was stood over to be heard with the application for leave to appeal. The court also clarified that decisions regarding concurrent hearings are generally administrative matters for the President of the Court of Appeal.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the motion incurred to date.