Norfeld v Jones - [2014] NSWSC 54

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Norfeld v Jones [2014] NSWSC 54
Hearing dates: 7 February 2014
Decision date: 07 February 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) The hearing of the appeal is adjourned upon the following conditions:
(a) The grounds stated in the Further Amended Summons filed in Court on 24 October 2013 are to stand without further amendment;
(b) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs thrown away by the adjournment on an indemnity basis forthwith, after they have been agreed or assessed, with liberty to apply in respect of any lump sum assessment;
(2) The appeal is fixed for directions before me on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 9.30 am with a view to fixing the matter for hearing.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - interlocutory issues - directions - application for adjournment
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Norfeld Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
Amanda Lee Jones trading as Watermark Patent & Trademark Attorneys (defendant)
Representation: S. Ahmed (defendant)
J. Preston (plaintiff in person)
Solicitors: Lewis Holdway (defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/00071259
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-02-12 00:00:00

Before:

Barko LCM and others

File Number(s):

2011/325041

Ex tempore judgment

This matter is listed before me for hearing. It is to be adjourned for reasons I will give succinctly, as the matter has been fully ventilated in argument. This is a Local Court appeal from a decision of his Honour Magistrate Barko. It concerns the recovery of professional fees by the defendant from the plaintiff. The defendant is a firm of Patent Attorneys.

The matter was listed before me yesterday when I was informed that the solicitors who formerly acted for the plaintiff, and the counsel retained by them, were no longer acting, and that the solicitors retainer had terminated. In those circumstances, for reasons I discussed in my judgment of yesterday, counsel also withdrew.

When I refused Mr Preston's application for an adjournment yesterday, I had hoped that, with some energy, a solicitor and barrister could be retained who would be able to get on top of the matter quickly, given that appeal books in the form of folders, and written submissions, had been fully prepared and exchanged. I indicated, informally, that if solicitors could be engaged, I would be well disposed perhaps to granting a short adjournment until Monday or Tuesday of next week to enable the new legal team to have the weekend to prepare the matter.

When the matter was called on for hearing today, Mr Preston, who is still unrepresented, appeared, and renewed his application for an adjournment. This time his application was supported by an affidavit of 7 February 2014 and by two additional printouts of e-mails between him and his former solicitors which I marked as Exhibit A.

One of the concerns of the Court in a case such as this, which involves the recovery of professional fees of around $80,000 and interest, is that legal costs must necessarily commence to greatly outweigh the amount in question. To…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Norfeld v Jones

Details

AGLC: Norfeld v Jones [2014] NSWSC 54
Case: [2014] NSWSC 54
Decision Date: 07 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Norfeld commenced proceedings against Jones, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The case was before the Supreme Court on an application for an adjournment of the hearing date. The dispute centred on whether the adjournment should be granted, considering the circumstances of the parties and the progress of the case. The primary legal issue was whether there were valid reasons for the delay in bringing the matter to trial, and whether the adjournment would prejudice the other party.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. It examined the reasons provided for the delay and assessed whether those reasons were justified. The court also considered whether the adjournment would cause an injustice to the other party and whether the delay would impact the administration of justice. Ultimately, the court found that the delay was not entirely justified and that the adjournment would cause undue prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, the application for an adjournment was dismissed.

The court emphasised the importance of timely prosecution of claims and noted that adjournments should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. It highlighted the need for parties to manage their cases efficiently to avoid unnecessary delays. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an adjournment and that the prejudice to the respondent outweighed any potential benefit of the delay. The matter was therefore ordered to proceed as scheduled, with no further adjournments granted without compelling reasons.

Orders