[2011] NSWCA 271

Martin v State of New South Wales (No 1)

Refuse application for adjournment of objections to competency and applications for leave to appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords

PROCEDURE - civil - application for adjournment - request for multiple related matters to be heard together - objection by State as to the competency of the appeals and related leave applications to be heard together - no grounds for adjournment

Judgment

[1]
BASTEN JA : Upon the matters being called this morning, Mr Martin, who is the applicant in the substantive proceedings in this Court, has sought that each of the motions be adjourned to be heard with the other related matters on 27 September 2011 as they were originally listed by the Registrar. That application implies that there is a link between the matters listed today and those listed at a later date. In fact the matters listed today involve only Mr Martin and the State of New South Wales. They were listed today by my direction on 15 August 2011, together with another matter which was in a sense related, but involved Highlake Resources Pty Ltd as one of the active parties.
[2]
As it has not been possible to obtain the consent of Highlake Resources to have the matters involving it and Tellus Resources Limited listed today, those matters are to be dealt with on 6 September. There is no link between the matters now listed for today, involving only the State of New South Wales, and the other matters.
[3]
The objections to competency which the State has brought were listed for hearing today on the basis that, if successful, the notices of appeal would be struck out and would no longer involve the time and resources of the parties or the Court. In response Mr Martin indicated that he intended to seek leave to appeal in respect of such matters as were found not to be competent by way of appeal as of right. The notices of motion of the State objecting to the competency of the appeals and the leave applications were the matters listed today. I do not understand there is any reason why they should not proceed in the manner originally intended. The application to adjourn those hearings should be refused.
[4]
HANDLEY AJA : I agree.