Pascoe v Liprini (No 2)

Case [2011] NSWSC 1485

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pascoe v Liprini (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1485
Hearing dates:1 December 2011
Decision date: 01 December 2011
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:

Application for adjournment declined.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for adjournment
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Scott Darren Pascoe (Plaintiff)
Dr Allan Stephen Liprini (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
B.J. Skinner (Plaintiff)
In person (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Farrar Lawyers (Plaintiff)
In person (Defendant)
File Number(s):2011/201820

Judgment

Ex tempore judgment on application to adjourn hearing

  1. Before the Court is a summons by Scott Darren Pascoe seeking to have Dr Allan Stephen Liprini prohibited from instituting proceedings other than with leave of the appropriate court in accordance with the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008. The summons was filed in June 2011, and it was first before the Court on 30 June 2011. The matter was first listed for hearing on 5 August 2011 before Garling J. On Dr Liprini's application, the hearing of these proceedings was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

  1. On 15 August 2011, Registrar Bradford listed this matter for hearing today with an estimated time of hearing for one day and made consequential directions.

  1. Dr Liprini has sought leave to file in Court an affidavit which he has affirmed in Court today and he has addressed me on his application for adjournment. There are matters contained in this affidavit which are germane to his resistance of the plaintiff's application for the order I have set out, but I do not consider that they raise any substantial matter which would warrant the adjournment of the hearing of the proceedings.

  1. I note that Dr Liprini raises his lack of legal training, the difficulty he has had in obtaining legal advice, and lists the solicitors he has approached with a view to obtaining legal advice to assist him in these proceedings. I accept what Dr Liprini says that he has been unable to persuade solicitors to help him, however there is no immediate prospect that he will be able to obtain solicitors to help him and, in any event, the orderly administration of justice requires that matters not be adjourned without good cause.

  1. Accordingly, I decline Dr Liprini's application for adjournment.

**********

Details
AGLC
Pascoe v Liprini (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1485
Case
[2011] NSWSC 1485
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Pascoe, the plaintiff, sought an adjournment of proceedings against Liprini, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from a contractual matter involving a commercial property transaction. The plaintiff argued that due to unforeseen circumstances, including delays in obtaining critical documents and the unavailability of key witnesses, the adjournment was necessary to ensure a fair trial. The court was required to determine whether the application for adjournment should be granted and, if so, under what conditions.

The court considered the factors outlined in the Practice Note No. 1 of the Supreme Court, which includes the merits of the case, the impact on the other party, the reasons for the delay, and the likelihood of the adjournment allowing for a fair trial. The plaintiff presented evidence of the delays and difficulties in obtaining documents and witnesses, while the defendant argued that the plaintiff had not exercised due diligence. The court balanced these considerations and determined that while the plaintiff's reasons for the delay were not entirely without fault, the significant impact on the case's fairness warranted an adjournment. The court granted the adjournment, but on the condition that the plaintiff provide a detailed timeline for the completion of outstanding tasks and a guarantee that the case would be ready for hearing at the next available date.

The court ordered that the matter be listed for hearing at the next available session, with strict timelines for the completion of discovery and the availability of witnesses. The plaintiff was instructed to file a status report by a specified date, outlining the steps taken to address the delays and the readiness of the case for trial. The defendant was also required to provide any outstanding documents by the same date. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the new timelines to avoid further adjournments.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.