Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd (No 3)

The New South Wales Court of Appeal, constituted by Basten, Macfarlan and Barrett JJA, considered an application to review directions made by Leeming JA concerning the listing of an appeal. The applicants, Menzies, sought to vacate the hearing dates for their appeal against Paccar Financial Pty Ltd, alleging non-compliance by the Court Registry with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 51.24, and arguing that insufficient material was available for the scheduled hearing.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the hearing dates for the appeal should be vacated and whether the directions made by Leeming JA regarding the preparation of appeal books and submissions were appropriate. The court was required to determine if the alleged non-compliance with the UCPR and the perceived inadequacy of the available material justified a review and alteration of the existing procedural orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the application to review the previous orders, vacating the scheduled hearing dates for the appeal. The judges reasoned that the existing directions were inadequate for a proper hearing, particularly concerning the organisation and presentation of documentary evidence. They set aside certain prior orders and provided detailed new directions for the preparation of the appeal books, requiring specific categories of material to be included in designated volumes. The court also directed the filing of concise written submissions, a chronology of critical events, and stipulated that the costs of the review application and prior proceedings would be costs in the appeal. The appeal was then stood over for further directions to the Registrar's list.