STEFANOVIC v PETROVIC [1989] NSWCA 197

STEFANOVIC v PETROVIC SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

GLEESON CJ, MEAGHER JA and Hope AJA 30 October 1989

[1989] NSWCA 197

Gleeson CJ This is an application by the appellant for an adjournment of the appeal. The appeal is from a decision of Needham J in the Equity Division of the Court given in March 1988. It appears that on the 2 August 1989 this appeal was fixed for hearing on today's date, that is 30 October 1989. No evidence in support of the application for adjournment has been filed, but we have been provided with certain information from the bar table as to the basis of the application.

We have been informed that on 4 August 1989 the appellant terminated the instructions of the solicitors who were then acting for him and instructed the solicitors who are presently acting for him. We are told that on 31 August 1989 counsel was briefed to act for the appellant and that on 23 October 1989 that counsel tendered certain advice concerning the appeal. We have no information as to the subject matter of that advice. On 26 October 1989 the appellant instructed his solicitors to withdraw the brief from that counsel and to brief new counsel. On 27 October 1989 Mr Healey of counsel, who now appears for the appellant, was briefed in the matter.

The first ground of the application for adjournment is that Mr Healey says he has had insufficient time adequately to prepare the appeal. To the extent to which Mr Healey finds himself in a position of embarrassment, that is evidently the consequence of the course that the appellant has taken in relation to the instructions given to his solicitors about the retaining of other counsel and the termination of that retainer. Moreover, he was briefed on Friday for an appeal on Monday, and this is not a very complex matter. In my view what has gone on in relation to the briefing of counsel by the appellant or the appellant's solicitors is not an adequate ground for the adjournment of the appeal.