Monroe Schneider Associates (Inc) & Anor v No 1 Raberem Pty Ltd

The parties before the High Court of Australia were Monroe Schneider Associates (Inc) and Barry Schneider (applicants), and No 1 Raberem Pty Ltd and No 2 Raberem Pty Ltd (respondents). The applicants sought an adjournment of their application for special leave to appeal. The primary basis for the adjournment was that if a separate application to the Federal Court to set aside a previous trial on the grounds of fraud were successful, the current application and appeal would become hypothetical and potentially moot.

The legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the adjournment. The applicants initially argued that proceeding with the special leave application might involve the Court in a hypothetical exercise, which could be considered a factor against granting special leave. However, they conceded that a significant element of prejudice, namely the potential for the respondents to argue that the application was hypothetical, had been removed by a concession from the respondents' counsel. Despite this concession, the applicants left it to the Court's discretion whether to proceed or adjourn.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, arguing that there was no prejudice to the applicants if the matter proceeded, but significant prejudice to their client if it did not. They highlighted that prejudice to their client could not be adequately compensated by costs orders and noted a pattern of using the appellate process to delay enforcement of proceedings in the United States. Brennan J indicated the Court would not hear further submissions on the adjournment. The applicants then confirmed they would proceed with the special leave application, noting they had lodged a bond in the United States proceedings and that those proceedings were scheduled for hearing.