GEBHARD v COAL AND ALLIED OPERATIONS PTY LTD; WILLIAMS v COAL AND ALLIED OPERATIONS PTY LTD [1994] NSWCA 46

GEBHARD v COAL & ALLIED OPERATIONS PTY LTD WILLIAMS v COAL & ALLIED OPERATIONS PTY LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE JA 31 January 1994 [1994] NSWCA 46

Clarke JA These are applications for an adjournment of the application for leave to appeal until 2 May. The ground of the application is that shortly prior to that time it is expected that the High Court will deal with special leave applications from decisions of this Court in Dedousis and other cases. If the High Court grants leave and ultimately allows the appeals, or at least one of the appeals, it may well be that the decision of the High Court will impact significantly upon the consideration of the problems raised in these two cases. Prima facie, therefore, there seems to be some merit in granting the adjournment.

On the other hand Mr Watson, who appears for the opponent, has submitted that, even if Mr Dedousis is successful in securing leave and winning his appeal, these particular claims are hopeless.

While it is not for me to make any decision on that submission I have to recognise that there is some force in what Mr Watson says and that, on any view, the applicants will have a difficult task. In the end it seems to me that the balance of justice is determined by the question of prejudice. If I decline to grant an adjournment then it is almost inevitable the applications will fail. In the event that Mr Dedousis is ultimately successful in the High Court the applicants will be put in a position where they will be able effectively to secure a determination in accordance with the principles laid down by the High Court. For its part there is no prejudice to the opponent in the granting of an adjournment as was recognised by Mr Watson and in this instance I think the interests of justice require that I make the order sought by the claimant.