Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dogra v Dogra (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 154 Hearing dates: 21 June 2024 Date of orders: 21 June 2024 Decision date: 21 June 2024 Before: Payne JA Decision: (1) Vacate Order 2 made on 27 May 2024 and in lieu thereof order that the appeal be listed for a one day hearing before the Court of Appeal on Monday 16 September 2024. (2) Confirm Orders 3-8 made on 27 May 2024. (3) The second respondent to pay the costs of the hearing today, 21 June 2024, together with any costs thrown away by reason of the making of Order 1 above. Catchwords: APPEALS — Procedure — Adjournment — application for adjournment — no issue of principle. Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Mamta Dogra (appellant/first cross-respondent) Aruna Dogra (first respondent/second cross-respondent) Kapil Dogra (second respondent/cross-appellant) Representation: Counsel: S Mo (solicitor) (appellant/first cross-respondent) D O'Dea (solicitor) (first respondent/second cross-respondent) S Lipp (second respondent/cross-appellant) Solicitors: Goodwin & Co Lawyers (appellant/first cross-respondent) O'Dea Lawyers (first respondent/second cross-respondent) JP Capsanis & Co Lawyers (second respondent/cross-appellant) File Number(s): 2024/8811 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity Citation: [2023] NSWSC 1642 Date of Decision: 21 December 2023 Before: Lindsay J File Number(s): 2021/00151823 [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.] JUDGMENT 1. PAYNE JA: This matter was before me on 27 May 2024 in the referrals list. I dealt on that day with a notice of motion seeking dismissal of the appeal or, in the alternative, security for costs. I dismissed that motion. I did, however, make case management orders as follows: (1) Vacate the directions hearing listed before the Court of Appeal Registrar on 3 June 2024. (2) Appeal listed for a one-day hearing before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday 27 August 2024. (3) Direct that by 4 pm Friday 28 June 2024 the appellant and cross-appellant file and serve the Blue and Black Books, suitably marked up to indicate where material was not admitted by the primary judge or was subject to an order limiting its use. If any party wishes to adduce evidence not before the primary judge, that evidence must be contained in a separate Blue Book. (4) Direct that the cross-appellant file and serve submissions in chief by 4 pm Friday 28 June 2024. (5) Direct that the first respondent file and serve submissions in reply to the appeal and cross-appeal, with a 30-page limit, by 4 pm Friday 19 July 2024. (6) Direct that the appellant and cross-appellant file and serve submissions in reply by 4 pm Thursday 8 August 2024. (7) Direct that the Orange Book be filed and served by 4 pm Thursday 15 August 2024. (8) Liberty to apply to the chambers of Payne JA with 24 hours' notice. 1. On 18 June 2024, the solicitor for the second respondent, Mr Capsanis, exercised the leave to apply to chambers granted in Order 8 above. 2. On 21 June 2024, Mr Lipp appeared on behalf of the second respondent and read the affidavit of Mr Capsanis sworn 21 June 2024. In essence, Mr Capsanis has retained Mr Golledge SC to appear on the appeal. However, Mr Golledge is not available on the date which had been fixed. Mr Lipp submitted that although it was an indulgence, his client wished to proceed with the senior counsel of his choice at the appeal. The appellant, represented by Mr Mo, consented to the refixing of the appeal date in the week commencing 16 September 2024. Mr O'Dea, who appeared for the first respondent, opposed the vacation of the existing date. However, he very responsibly accepted that he could point to no real prejudice if the hearing took place in the week commencing 16 September, so long as moving to that date did not affect the other orders for preparation which I had made. 3. Whilst I was reluctant to move the date for the hearing, I was persuaded that I should do so. This was because: 1. all parties are available in the week commencing 16 September 2024; 2. the prejudice to the other parties is small or non-existent and may be ameliorated by an award of costs; and 3. the assurances given to me by the appellant and second respondent that there was no reason to think that the orders for preparation I made would not be complied with if the hearing date was changed; 4. the Court is able to accommodate a hearing on 16 September 2014 without unduly affecting other litigants. 1. It should not be thought that the Court will readily move a date for hearing of an appeal based on the availability of counsel. In this case, however, I was persuaded that I could do so affording fairness to these parties and without unduly affecting other litigants. 2. Accordingly, on 21 June 2024, I made the following orders: 1. Vacate Order 2 made on 27 May 2024 and in lieu thereof order that the appeal be listed for a one day hearing before the Court of Appeal on Monday 16 September 2024. 2. Confirm Orders 3-8 made on 27 May 2024. 3. The second respondent to pay the costs of the hearing today, 21 June 2024, together with any costs thrown away by reason of the making of Order 1 above. Note: The Court notes the assurance of all parties that there is no reason to believe that the dates for compliance with Orders 3-7 made on 27 May 2024 will not be complied with. ********** Amendments 24 June 2024 - Appearances corrected DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 June 2024