Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd (No 2)

In *Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd (No 2)*, the applicants, Mr and Mrs Menzies, sought to vacate a hearing date. They alleged non-compliance by the Court Registry with rule 51.24 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR). The respondent, Paccar Financial Pty Ltd, opposed this application.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the alleged non-compliance with UCPR 51.24 warranted vacating the hearing date. A secondary issue arose from the applicants' threatened, but unformulated, application to amend their notice of appeal.

Leeming JA considered the application to vacate the hearing date. His Honour found that the applicants had not suffered material prejudice from the alleged non-compliance with UCPR 51.24. Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the notice of appeal were not yet formulated, meaning the Court could not assess their merits or impact on the hearing. Consequently, the application to vacate the hearing date was refused.

The Court made several orders, including dispensing with further compliance with UCPR 51.24(1)(b) and (2) to the extent necessary. Directions were given for the filing and service of any proposed amended notice of appeal and supporting submissions by specific dates. Paccar was directed to indicate its opposition to any amendment application. The applicants' notice of motion was otherwise dismissed, and they were ordered to pay Paccar's costs of the motions.