Stefanou v Fairfield Chase P/L

[1992] FCA 931

?

JUDGMENT NO. ..??X. 1......l ..?&

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY)	NO NG 727 of 1989
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN JOHN STEFANOU & OTHERS

Applicants

AND	FAIRFIELD CHASE PTY LTD &
OTHERS
Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION

tension and animus between the parties with the consequence

EINFELD J SYDNEY 2 November 1992

A motion by Fairfield Chase against its two former solicitors in relation to solicitor and client costs is part heard by the Court, with the hearing fixed to resume on Friday 6 November. The facts of the matter are set out in a previous judgment of 13 August 1992. It is obvious that the case is causing much

that the professional judgment and balance of everyone involved are becoming clouded and unhinged. The court cannot become enmeshed in or be a party to such an atmosphere

The matter has been before the Court on 5 occasions. On 13

August 1992 when setting the resumed hearing date, I gave

directions for the preparation of the motion for hearing. I

have recently been informed by facsimile letter from the

present solicitors for Fairfield Chase that the respondents to

-

the motion are in default under the existingldir'ections. If what the letter says is correct, so is Fairfiela Chase itself. The letter asks that the matter be listed for directions again when Fairfield Chase says that it would seek .extension of the times for the steps not yet comple'ted by bdih sides, and orders vacating and re-fixing the hearing 'date and for costs. No consent is supplied, not even to a recast timetable if an adjournment is granted. There is not even any suggestion that the respondents to the motion have been notified of the request *--a further mention, still less what their attitude is to the request.

to warrant its listing yet again. For the parties to have	Far too much court time has been spent on this matter already
taken a date for the hearing at this difficult time of the year for listings and not use it at late notice without demonstrated worthy cause is reprehensible in the extreme. I will not give the matter further indulgence at this time by permitting more wastage of time and money.
As the moving party seeks an adjournment of its own proceedings, it would prima facie be granted if there is no prejudice to the other party. Accordingly, unless the respondents to the motion supply my Associate with a particularised written objection by 12 noon on Wednesday November 4, the motion will be adjourned and re-listed for directions at 9.30 am on Friday 23 April 1993. Costs will be reserved.
As to the preparation and timetable, any party in default under orders and directions of the Court will at the appropriate time be required to show cause why he or it should not be dealt with for contempt of court for ignoring court orders and directions. The request of Fairfield Chase to have the respondents' times extended is incompetent. The Court cannot compel a party to file or present evidence. It can only set a time and procedure for the filing or presentation of any evidence desired to be relied on. There being no

-

applicatizn-- from the respondents themselves in this connection, it is assumed that all the evidence they wish to

rely on has been filed and served. There is no basis for this	extension. Fairfield Chase's request to have its own times
extended was made after the time had expired and was not accompanied by any reasons for the prior failure to comply. It is not enough to rely on the other side's failures without more. There is no basis for this extension either.
The overall procedures for the hearing of the case were ordered by the Court some time ago and despite ample

opportunity the parties have made no request for these procedures to be varied. Parties who fail to file evidence in accordance with the stipulated procedures should not expect to be permitted to make submissions or refer CO authorities. Any desire to vary this consequence of the parties' own defaults in this case can only be dealt with by motions on due notice supported by affidavits in accordance with the rules of Court.

It is not for the Court to prepare cases or comply with its

own orders. It is for the parties. This case will be

disposed of as presented in accordance with the rules, orders

and directions of the Court and in no other way. The
application for further listing is refused. There will be no
order as to the costs of the application. There will be

liberty to apply, in relation to this application and order

alone, on three daysf notice in writing of the matters desired

to be agitated, the reasons for a listing, the time desired,

and the evidence and submissions intended to be advanced at

--

the time. -

- &... .

, I cart~ty that this m d tho +LW-? 7 S,

1 preccdtn? p q c . s ?re a true cPrv i h ~ i

I Ressoas for Juc'3rnoni h e i e ~ ~ l of h,$ H o o o ~ ~ r I

Justrco E1nt2ld 1

1   i