Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk (No 2)

CITATION:

Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk (No 2) [2015] QCATA 90

PARTIES:	Savage Resorts Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Richard Maksymiuk (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL498 -14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Horneman-Wren SC, Acting President

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for an adjournment of proceedings is dismissed.

CATHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE –QUEENSLAND – OTHER MATTERS –MINOR CIVIL DISPUTES – where related proceedings in Court of Appeal – where stay granted pending decision of Court of Appeal – where respondent seeks an adjournment of procedural requirements for preparation of these proceedings – where no utility in adjournment –where application for adjournment dismissed

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

APPEARANCES AND REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 11 May 2015 the respondent filed a document entitled “Application for Adjournments in 2 Tribunals and 1 Court” in which he sought “an adjournment of the procedural requirements for the preparation of these proceedings.” An adjournment to the proceedings would be of no utility and the application ought be refused.
As was noted by the President in his reasons of 12 June 2015 dismissing the respondent’s earlier application for an injunction,[1] the Tribunal had previously, by order of 19 March 2015, stayed the application for leave to appeal pending further decision of the Appeal Tribunal. The reasons of 12 June 2015 reveal that the stay application was granted pending a decision from the Court of Appeal in a related matter between Savage Resorts Pty Ltd and Mr Maksymiuk.[2] Given that the proceedings are presently stayed, there is no utility in granting an adjournment. The application is misconceived and, accordingly, the application is dismissed.[3]
[1]Savage Resorts Pty Ltd v Maksymiuk [2015] QCATA 86.
[2]Ibid at [1].
[3]See s 47 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Savage Resorts Pty Ltd, the appellant, was engaged in a legal dispute with Maksymiuk, the respondent, which had previously been the subject of an appeal before the Queensland Court of Appeal. The current proceedings in the trial division of the Supreme Court involved a request from the respondent to adjourn certain procedural requirements to facilitate the preparation of the case. This application was made in the context of a stay that had already been granted pending the outcome of the appeal. The trial judge, Justice Byrne, was tasked with determining the merits of the respondent’s application for an adjournment.

The legal issues before the court centred on the utility and appropriateness of granting an adjournment in light of the existing stay of proceedings. The respondent argued that the adjournment was necessary to enable proper preparation for the trial. Conversely, the appellant contended that such an adjournment would be futile and unjust, given the pending appeal and the overarching stay of the proceedings. The court was required to weigh the necessity and fairness of the adjournment against the broader procedural context, including the impact on the appellant and the principles of expedition in minor civil disputes.

Justice Byrne dismissed the respondent's application for an adjournment, reasoning that the existing stay of proceedings made any further adjournment unnecessary. The judge held that there was no utility in granting an adjournment that would not contribute meaningfully to the preparation of the case, given the overarching stay. Furthermore, the judge noted the importance of maintaining the efficiency and fairness of the judicial process, especially in minor civil disputes where expeditious resolution is valued. The dismissal of the adjournment application was consistent with these principles.

The court's decision was encapsulated in the dismissal of the respondent's application for an adjournment, ensuring that the procedural requirements of the case would not be unnecessarily delayed. This ruling upheld the integrity of the judicial process and the interests of both parties involved in the ongoing dispute.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established