Roskott v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The applicants, who were unrepresented, sought an adjournment of a hearing before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The respondent, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, opposed the adjournment. The applicants had made their application via email to the Registry the day before the hearing, and the respondent argued that this short notice, coupled with the lack of merit in the applicants' defence, warranted refusal of the adjournment to protect the respondent from wasted costs.

The Court was required to determine whether to grant the adjournment application, considering the applicants' unrepresented status and the timing of their request. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether to grant an extension of time for the applicants to seek leave to appeal, and whether their proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success. A further issue concerned the substance of the applicants' defence to a mortgage default claim, specifically their assertion that the respondent had accepted a bill of exchange for one dollar, thereby discharging the mortgage.

The Court dismissed the summons, refusing the adjournment and the extension of time. Their Honours reasoned that the applicants' defence lacked substance and that granting an adjournment at such short notice would be unfair to the respondent, who had incurred costs in preparing for the hearing. The Court noted that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provided mechanisms for absent parties to apply to set aside or vary orders within a specified timeframe, mitigating concerns about the applicants being prejudiced by the refusal. The appeal was considered to have no reasonable prospects of success.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the summons be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal.