Young v King (No 7)
[2015] NSWLEC 178
•11 November 2015
|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Young v King (No 7) |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2015] NSWLEC 178 |
Hearing Date(s): | 11 November 2015 |
Date of Orders: | 11 November 2015 |
Decision Date: | 11 November 2015 |
Jurisdiction: | Class 4 |
Before: | Sheahan J |
Decision: | The Applicant’s Notice of Motion to vacate the hearing on 30 November 2015 is dismissed. |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: No grounds made out for deferral of the commencement of costs hearing |
Category: | Procedural and other rulings |
Parties: | Margo Young (Applicant) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
File Number(s): | 40417 of 200340449 of 2014 |
EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT
The hearing of costs issues as between the parties to the substantive litigation, Mrs Young and the Kings, is fixed to commence on 30 November 2015.
The applicant has chosen, however, to seek costs from a large number of non-parties, some of whom have already filed Notices of Motion seeking relief from the Court in that respect.
Long-standing advocate for Mrs Young, Robert Newell, has been taken ill, and Mrs Young has now sought vacation of the November-December hearing dates.
The seriousness of Mr Newell’s condition is one subject of his lengthy affidavit filed in support of the Notice of Motion (“NOM”) to vacate. He is currently in St Vincent’s hospital for treatment, but not one medical report or certificate, indicating his prognosis, has been provided to me.
Mr Newell has been preparing submissions on costs, now expected to be 400 pages in length, but they are not yet complete. Mrs Young’s solicitor, Mr Muriniti, has asked the Court to (1) allow her until 30 November to file them, and (2) adjourn the hearing into December.
All the other parties Mrs Young has chosen to join resist any deferment of the hearing, and one, at least (Warwick Davies), would like his NOM to dismiss the claim against him to be dealt with in the week prior to the 30th.
The Court today has several courses open:
(1)It could accede to Mrs Young’s NOM filed in Court this morning, and delay the matter in its entirety;
(2)It could maintain the 30 November commencement date for the hearing of all NsOM concerning costs;
(3)It could deal with applications for summary dismissal and the like as soon as possible, and before 30 November, as requested by Mr Faulkner.
(4)It could deal with the substantive inter-partes costs issues in the week commencing the 30 November, but defer for later hearing any and all applications (including the NsOM filed by the parties in 2012 and 2013) for the Kings’ costs to be paid by Young’s lawyers.
My inquiries indicate that, from the Court’s listing point of view, a rescheduling into the last full week of November, or into December, is simply not possible.
Mrs Young has an obligation to expedite finalisation of her claims, and at least one of her chosen respondents, Mr Springett, pleads to the Court today that his health is prejudiced by continuation of, let alone delay in, that finalisation. The Court of Appeal is also said to be anxious for all aspects of the proceedings under appeal to be concluded together.
This Court, therefore, should not entertain the prospect that the matter drag into next year.
I have decided to adopt the second and fourth options which I have just stated, namely maintain the 30 November commencement date, and deal with the substantive inter-partes costs issues in that hearing, but defer, for a later hearing, any and all applications for any of those costs incurred by the Kings to be paid by Mrs Young’s lawyers.
I will, therefore, make the directions sought in Mr Miller’s Draft Short Minutes of Order.
In addition, however, I would ask all present today to ensure that appropriate appearances are filed, and addresses for service notified, and that any NsOM required to be dealt with are also filed. (Submissions today suggest more are on foot than I can see in the file, and the tenth respondent, Robert Springett, in light of what he told the Court today, might consider filing a NOM. The opening must be there for that to occur within a very short space of time.)
The NOMs seeking any intervention by the Court by way of summary dismissal or the like will be dealt with at the outset of the hearing on 30 November 2015.
The applicant’s NOM filed in Court today is dismissed, and the costs of today will be all parties’ costs in the cause.
[Counsel then canvassed with the Court some other possible directions, and His Honour added the following:
(a) Mr Gray and Mr Miller were asked to settle the Short Minutes of Order in final form.
(b) The applicant’s submissions are to clearly indicate the claims she is making against each respondent, and to identify (i) the legal bases for the relief claimed against each respondent, and (ii) the part(s) of her proposed tender material that the applicant relies upon and/or does not rely upon as against each respondent.
(c) Submissions are to be provided in Word format to all parties and the Court;
(d) The first and second respondents were excused from attendance on 30 November 2015, and their NOM for costs on a indemnity basis against the applicant was marked “Not before 10am on 1 December 2015”.
(e) All parties have liberty to apply to His Honour in chambers in respect of matters they wish dealt with on 30 November 2015.]
NOTE: The hearing commencing on 30 November is to be held in Court 9D, Supreme Court building, Queens Square.
**********
5
0
0