Powell v Hewitt - [2019] SADC 195

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
POWELL & ANOR v HEWITT & ORS
[2019] SADC 195
Reasons of His Honour Judge O'Sullivan
20 December 2019
PROCEDURE - STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY - INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS - TO STAY OR DISMISS ORDERS OR PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY
PROCEDURE - COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY - COURTS - ADJOURNMENT
There are two applications before the court.
The first application was filed by the defendant on 13 December 2019, and sought a number of orders including vacating the trial date of 23 March 2020, and vacating the pre-trial orders as to evidence and objections.
The second application was filed by the first, third party on 13 December 2019, and sought an order that the third-party action against him be stayed pursuant to s 20 of the Services and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth).
On the first application, held:
1. Application to adjourn the trial is dismissed.
2. The court will hear the parties as to varying the pre-trial orders relating to filing or adducing further evidence.
On the second application, held:
1. Application dismissed.
2. The court will hear the parties as to the conduct of the trial, taking into account the location of witnesses to be called by the first, third party.
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) s 20; District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), referred to.
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] 239 CLR 175; Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2010] SASCFC 59; Commonwealth of Australia v Saadat & Ors [2019] SASCFC 124, considered.

POWELL & ANOR v HEWITT & ORS
[2019] SADC 195
Introduction

There are two applications before the court.
The first, filed 13 December 2019[1] by the defendant seeks a number of orders including vacating the trial date of 23 March 2020 and vacating the pre-trial orders as to evidence and objections. The plaintiff and the first third-party oppose the application to vacate the trial date. The second third-party, Mr Taylor takes no position and the third third-party, Mr Ceglinski does not oppose the adjournment.
[1] FDN 100.
The second application is by Mr Mews,[2] also filed 13 December 2019 in which he seeks an order that the third-party action against him be stayed pursuant to s 20 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth). The defendant opposes the application.
[2] FDN 105.
History
This matter was originally listed for trial to commence on Monday, 14 October 2019. On or about 22 August 2019 the plaintiff settled in principle with the then second, third and fourth defendants, a fact about which the defendant was initially informed on or about that date. The defendant was advised on 19 September 2019 that the settlement had been confirmed and the parties in question had executed Deeds of Settlement.
By application dated 3 October 2019, the defendant sought permission to join the former second, third and fourth defendants as third parties to the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Powell v Hewitt and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] SADC 195
Decision Date: 20 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Powell v Hewitt is a case involving the applicant, Mr Powell, and the respondent, Mr Hewitt. The dispute revolves around the procedural matter of an adjournment of a hearing before a court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established grounds sufficient to justify an adjournment of the hearing. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a delay in the scheduled proceedings.

The court considered the principles and precedents that govern the grant of adjournments, emphasising the importance of fairness and the efficient administration of justice. It examined the circumstances presented by Mr Powell and assessed whether these circumstances constituted an exceptional case that justified an adjournment. The court's analysis included a review of the evidence and arguments provided by both parties, along with relevant legal authorities. Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted the adjournment of the hearing. The reasoning was based on the absence of compelling reasons to delay the proceedings, and the court found that the hearing should proceed as scheduled.

In light of its findings, the court dismissed the application for an adjournment. The decision underscores the principle that adjournments should be granted sparingly and only when there are clear and compelling reasons to justify a delay in the proceedings. The court's order reflected its determination that the application did not meet the required threshold for an adjournment, and accordingly, the hearing proceeded as planned.

Orders