Legal Research
Cases
Vaughan v Dawson

Vaughan v Dawson

Case [2005] NSWSC 33 4 February 2005

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Vaughan v Dawson [2005] NSWSC 33

HEARING DATE(S): 4 February 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

4 February 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF:
Campbell J

DECISION:
Notice of Motion seeking expedition dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE - Supreme Court procedure - Equity Division Expedition List - need for Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit seeking expedition - requirements of affidavit seeking expedition - practical consideration affecting operation of Expedition List

LEGISLATION CITED:
Supreme Court Act 1970
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Greetings Oxford Hotel Pty Ltd v Oxford Square Investments Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 33

PARTIES:
Graham David Vaughan - First Plaintiff
Christine Nash - Second Plaintiff
Rhonda Dawson - First Defendant
Wayne Dawson - Second Defendant
Illana Lampert - Third Defendant
Trevor Solomons - Fourth Defendant
Irena Nebenzhal - Fifth Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 1002/05

COUNSEL:
S Velik, solicitor - Plaintiffs
P Carlisle, solicitor - Defendants

SOLICITORS:
Velik Solicitors - Plaintiffs
Steingold Abel Lawyers - Defendants

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EXPEDITION LIST

CAMPBELL J

FRIDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2005

1002/05 GRAHAM DAVID VAUGHAN & ANOR v RHONDA DAWSON & ORS

JUDGMENT – Ex Tempore

1 HIS HONOUR: This is a matter in which removal is sought of two caveats. The caveats are over some land at Balmain in the development of which the plaintiffs are involved.

2 The plaintiffs filed a notice of motion seeking expedition on 4 January 2005, returnable today. That notice of motion stated that the orders were sought upon the basis of two specific affidavits. Those affidavits are affidavits which were sworn for the purpose of the principal proceedings. They are the only affidavits filed by the plaintiffs so far, and seem to tell the whole story of the plaintiffs’ involvement in the development. One of the affidavits refers repeatedly to documents contained in a bundle of documents. The substance of the affidavit is not fully comprehensible without access to that bundle of documents. Being an exhibit, of course, that bundle of documents was not filed.

3 Today, the applicants for expedition sought an order that they be granted leave to file a further affidavit, within a short period of time. The legal representative for the respondents to the application for expedition, sought to have it stood over to enable some settlement discussions to take place, and tendered some documents which he contends raise a case for expedition not being appropriate. The legal representative for the applicant tells me, from the Bar table that there are answers to the matters on which the respondent relies.

4 The application for expedition has come before the Court in a condition where the Court is simply not able to deal with it.

5 It is appropriate, as there have been numerous departures from the proper procedure for the running of the Expedition List in several cases in today's list, to re-state some matters concerning Expedition List procedure.

6 Practice Note 43, issued in 1987, is the only statement made by 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.

Continue reading Vaughan v Dawson

Details

AGLC: Vaughan v Dawson [2005] NSWSC 33
Case: [2005] NSWSC 33
Decision Date: 4 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vaughan v Dawson involved a dispute within the Supreme Court's Equity Division concerning the Expedition List. The plaintiff sought to expedite the hearing of their motion under the provisions of the Expedition List. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's application for expedition complied with the necessary procedural requirements. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's affidavit supporting the motion for expedition met the practical considerations and legal standards set out for such applications.

The court's analysis focused on the requirements for a Notice of Motion and the accompanying affidavit seeking expedition. It examined whether the affidavit adequately addressed the practical considerations that impact the operation of the Expedition List. The court considered whether the affidavit sufficiently demonstrated the urgency and necessity of expediting the hearing, aligning with the principles governing the Expedition List. The plaintiff argued that their affidavit sufficiently met these requirements, while the defendant contended that the application did not adequately justify the expedition of the hearing.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's affidavit did not meet the necessary standards for expediting the hearing under the Expedition List. It found that the affidavit failed to address the practical considerations sufficiently and did not demonstrate the urgency required for such an application. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for expedition. The defendant's motion was then heard on the regular list, and the court proceeded to make its determination based on the merits of the case. The court's decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements when seeking to expedite hearings under the Expedition List.

Orders