YOUNG v JD COATES PTY LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL KIRBY P, SAMUELS and CLAKE JJA 20 February 1990, 20 February 1990 [1990] NSWCA 191 PRACTICE and PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — adjournment — application for adjournment of appeal hearing on day listed — protracted litigation — appellant appears in person solicitor withdrew after she failed to provide security for his costs — no prejudice to the respondents — respondents oppose adjournment — held: Appeal adjourned on terms that (a) the appellant pay the costs of the day and (b) the hearing be not listed until the respondents' costs have been paid or otherwise agree. ORDERS (1) Adjourn the hearing of the appeal to be heard on a later date (2) Order that the appeal be not relisted for hearing until the Registrar is notified by the respondents or their solicitors that the costs of today have been paid or that they otherwise consent to relisting; (3) Order that the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of today; and (4) Liberty to all parties to apply on five days' notice. Kirby P This is the second time that proceedings between the present parties have been listed before the Court. The earlier proceedings were listed and determined in favour of the appellant on 3 February 1987. After that judgment, the matter went back for re-trial in the District court. It was tried before Acting Judge Callaway on 21 March 1988. The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment. She accordingly appealed again to this Court. The matter is listed for hearing today. It has been so listed for several months. The appellant appears in person. She asks for an adjournment. She claims that she needs to have a solicitor and counsel representing her. The nature of her complaints, which include psychiatric disturbance, make this more relevant in the present appeal than in most. The appellant has come into her present predicament because she has failed to pay the costs of her former solicitor. The solicitor notified her by letter of his inability to appear without security for the costs of the appeal for counsel and himself. The claimant says that she considered that that letter, which she only recently received, was a final notification of the withdrawal of the solicitor. It is not necessary to determine whether that is so. She asks that the matter be adjourned so that she can be represented. The respondents oppose that application. Naturally enough, they seek to bring to an end this protracted litigation. However, the respondents could not point to any particular prejudice if the Court were minded to grant the application on the basis that the appellant pay the costs of today, thrown away by the belated application for adjournment. The Court will so order. It will also order that the matter not be relisted until the Registrar of the Court of Appeal has been notified that the costs of today have been paid by Miss Young, such costs to be agreed or taxed. The orders are therefore: (1) Adjourn the hearing of the appeal to be heard on a later date 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS (2) Order that the appeal be not relisted for hearing until the Registrar is notified by the respondents or their solicitors that the costs of today have been paid or that they otherwise consent to relisting; (at page 3) (3) Order that the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of today; and 5 (4) Liberty to all parties to apply on five days' notice.