Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd v KR Properties Global Pty Ltd trading as AK Properties Group ABN 62 971 068 965 (No 5)

The parties involved in this case were Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd and KR Properties Global Pty Ltd, trading as AK Properties Group. The dispute centred around whether orders made on 15 August 2023, which required the second cross-defendant to pay the costs of the cross-claimant, should be set aside. The court involved was the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The second cross-defendant had agreed to a timetable for submissions on the costs issue, but subsequently instructed his solicitors on the record to cease all work and briefly engaged alternative solicitors. As a result, the second cross-defendant failed to comply with the agreed timetable for submissions, prompting the cross-claimant to seek the setting aside of the orders made on 15 August 2023.

The legal issues before the court were whether the orders made on 15 August 2023 were valid given that they were made in the absence of the second cross-defendant, and whether the second cross-defendant's failure to comply with the agreed timetable for submissions justified the setting aside of those orders. The court had to consider the circumstances under which the orders were made and whether the second cross-defendant's actions constituted a valid reason for setting aside the orders. The court also had to determine whether the second cross-defendant's failure to comply with the timetable for submissions was a significant factor in deciding whether to set aside the orders.

The court held that the orders made on 15 August 2023 should not be set aside. The court found that the orders were made in the absence of the second cross-defendant, but that the second cross-defendant had been given a fair opportunity to be heard and to present his case. The court also found that the second cross-defendant's failure to comply with the agreed timetable for submissions did not constitute a valid reason for setting aside the orders. The court held that the second cross-defendant's actions did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings, and that the orders should stand. The court emphasised that parties must comply with agreed timetables and that failure to do so could have consequences.

No further orders were made by the court. The court's decision upheld the orders made on 15 August 2023 and rejected the cross-claimant's application to set them aside. The court's decision highlights the importance of parties complying with agreed timetables and the consequences of failing to do so. The decision also underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that proceedings are conducted fairly and that orders are made in the absence of a party only if it is appropriate and just to do so.