Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski

[2010] NSWSC 1184

CITATION:	Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2010] NSWSC 1184
HEARING DATE(S):	12 August 2010
JURISDICTION:	Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF:	Brereton J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	12 August 2010
DECISION:	Application for adjournment refused.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – Supreme Court Procedure – New South Wales – Procedure under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and other rules of court – Trial – adjournment – whether hearing should be adjourned for half a day so that parties can continue settlement negotiations in circumstances where an open settlement offer has been tendered to the court – protracted complex dispute in religious and cultural community
CATEGORY:	Procedural and other rulings
PARTIES:	His Eminence Petar the Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia & New Zealand (first plaintiff) The Very Reverend Father Mitko Mitrev (second plaintiff) Lambe Mitreski (defendant) Pero Damcevski (second defendant) Boris Minovski (third defendant) Eftim Eftimov (fourth defendant) Mile Marcevski (fifth defendant) Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated (sixth defendant) Naum Despotoski (eighth defendant) Attorney-General for the State of NSW (ninth defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 97/25609
COUNSEL:	Mr TGR Parker SC w Mr RE Steele (Ps) Ms L Goodchild (D1-6, 8) Mr M Izzo (D9)
SOLICITORS:	Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Ps) McConnell Jaffray Lawyers (D1-6, 8) Crown Solicitor (D9)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRERETON J

Thursday, 12 August 2010

1997/25609 His Eminence Petar the Dicoesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand v Lambe Mitreski

JUDGMENT (ex tempore)

1 HIS HONOUR: I have previously expressed, I think clearly, on the one hand the compelling reasons for the parties endeavouring to compromise and settle these proceedings, and the court's desire to do what it reasonably can to facilitate that course; but, on the other, the competing obligation of the court to manage this case to finality in the time allotted, so many years having passed since it was commenced. On the one hand, it would be very unfortunate if, by pressing on, the prospects of a settlement were reduced or lost. On the other, it would be a disgrace if, by not pressing on, the completion of the proceedings within the time available was jeopardised.

2 As I have previously said, there is no reason, or at least no good reason, why negotiations cannot continue in parallel with the continuation of the proceedings. The defendants have counsel and solicitor present, and one can conduct the litigation in court while the other obtains instructions and advances negotiations.

3 I have to take into account that the parties are offering rather different assessments of the prospects of a settlement being achieved. If both parties thought that settlement was close, my view might well be different. If the Attorney communicated a view that a situation had been reached in which he considered an opportunity for further negotiations with the proceedings being adjourned in the meantime was desirable, again that might well affect my view.

4 Against that, I do have to take into account that what seems to be a genuine offer, involving some real elements of compromise, has been made. But there is no reason why the plaintiffs cannot consider that in parallel with the continuation of the litigation.

5 In support of the application for an adjournment it was argued that the cross-examination yesterday had inflamed the situation, and that further cross-examination ran the risk of doing the same thing. While I accept that some statements made from the witness box yesterday would not have been well received by the defendants, it seems to me that there can have been little doubt that the competing positions and emotions of the parties must already be well-known to each other, and it would be surprising if anything that was said yesterday came as a surprise to those who heard it in court.

6 In short, while some emotions may be released in the witness box during cross-examination, those emotions exist, and I suspect are known to the other parties, already. For that reason, I do not think that continuing cross-examination is so deleterious to the prospects of settlement as has been suggested.

7 Given the number of witnesses and number of affidavits which the court has been told are to be called and read respectively in the defendants' case, it seems to me that a further adjournment would be fraught with risk of not completing the proceedings in time.

8 If I were told at some stage during the morning that a short adjournment, of fifteen to thirty minutes, was desirable to enable negotiations to progress, I would be prepared to accede to that, but I am not prepared to sacrifice half a day of the proceedings in the present circumstances.

**********