LEE -v- MAVADDAT [2002] WASC 259

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 259
Case No:	CIV:1862/2001	Heard:	4 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	4/10/02
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Time extended
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KYUNG HEE LEE MICHAEL MOOJAN MAVADDAT
Catchwords:	Application to dismiss proceedings for failure to comply with time limitations Time extended Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : LEE -v- MAVADDAT [2002] WASC 259 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 4 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 4 OCTOBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1862 of 2001 BETWEEN : KYUNG HEE LEE

Plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL MOOJAN MAVADDAT

Defendant

Catchwords:

Application to dismiss proceedings for failure to comply with time limitations - Time extended - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Time extended

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr G M Townsend

Defendant : Mr S Penglis

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Stables Scott

Defendant : Freehills

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 EM HEENAN J: In this matter I consider that the delay in progress towards the disposition of this chamber summons is very considerable. It has been caused, to an extent, by an agreed moratorium period between the parties which has expired at some date which has not been disclosed to me.

2 The situation has further been complicated by the plaintiff recently changing solicitors and experiencing difficulties in securing papers to provide to the new solicitors. A further unfortunate and very tragic complication is a death in the plaintiff's family which, no doubt, has preoccupied the plaintiff and those associated with him.

3 Nevertheless, it is important that the Court's processes proceed at a satisfactory pace and not be left dormant for extended periods. I accept the submission from Mr Penglis that this matter must either proceed and be dealt with or be abandoned and that a realistic timetable must now be imposed. Equally, it seems to me to be futile to set a timetable which would only trigger further applications for adjournments or jeopardise the proper determination upon the merits of an application which, judging from the lack of priority given to it by the parties until now, cannot be of overwhelming urgency.

4 In those circumstances I am prepared to allow the plaintiff 21 days from today to file any further affidavit material upon which the plaintiff may wish to rely in support of the application for Mareva orders, and to allow the defendant 14 days from the date of receipt of that material to file any responsive affidavits or to bring any application which may arise. Upon the defendant filing answering affidavits or upon the expiration of 14 days from the filing of affidavits by the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall take steps to refer this matter to the list clerk to be allocated a special appointment for hearing as soon as possible.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Mavaddat was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, presided over by Justice Heenan. The plaintiff, Kyung Hee Lee, had brought proceedings against the defendant, Michael Moojan Mavaddat, and sought to extend time for filing further affidavits in support of an application for Mareva orders. The dispute centred around whether the plaintiff should be granted an extension of time to comply with the procedural requirements of the court.

The legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's request for an extension of time should be granted, considering the delay in the progress of the proceedings and the various circumstances that had contributed to it. The court needed to balance the need for the court's processes to proceed at a satisfactory pace against the circumstances that had caused the delay, and determine whether a realistic timetable could be imposed.

Justice Heenan acknowledged the considerable delay in the proceedings, which had been caused by several factors, including an agreed moratorium period, a change in the plaintiff's solicitors, and a tragic death in the plaintiff's family. However, the court recognised the importance of ensuring that the court's processes did not remain dormant for extended periods. The court accepted the defendant's submission that the matter must either proceed or be abandoned, and that a realistic timetable must be imposed. The court set a 21-day period for the plaintiff to file any further affidavit material, and a 14-day period for the defendant to file any responsive affidavits or bring any applications that may arise. The plaintiff was then required to take steps to refer the matter to the list clerk for allocation of a special appointment for hearing.

The final orders of the court allowed the plaintiff 21 days from the date of the judgment to file any further affidavit material, and the defendant 14 days from the date of receipt of that material to file any responsive affidavits or bring any applications that may arise. The plaintiff was required to refer the matter to the list clerk for allocation of a special appointment for hearing upon the defendant filing answering affidavits or upon the expiration of 14 days from the filing of affidavits by the plaintiff.

Lee v Mavaddat

LEE -v- MAVADDAT [2002] WASC 259

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established