MANALDO PTY LTD v BAULKHAM HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL and ANOR SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA 1 December 1997 [1997] NSWCA 193 Priestley JA On application to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Before the court there is an application to stand out of the list a matter which is set down for hearing of the appeal on 16 December 1997. I have heard counsel for the applicant/appellant, and I understand the common sense, from his client's point of view, of the matter's standing over. I have received a written submission from counsel for the first opponent, elaborated orally, in which that party's reasons have been fully given for wanting the matter to proceed. The second opponent has also added submissions as to why the matter should proceed. At first, I thought there might be some real usefulness in considering the various reasons on either side of the record for and against the granting of the application. These related to the possibility of the overall settlement of matters concerning all three parties, of which the appeal concerned part only. As the argument proceeded, however, I came to the conclusion that it would not be right to allow my decision to be governed by the considerations of advantage or disadvantage to the three parties which the postponement of the hearing of the appeal might bring about in negotiations about the rather complicated overall situation. In the end, it seems to me that the proper approach is to recognise that the appellant, having a right to appeal, has appealed on certain questions of law and a hearing date for the appeal has been fixed. The two respondents to the appeal say they wish the appeal to proceed on the day for which it has been fixed. Leaving aside the practical reasons concerning the overall situation between the parties which are actuating the appellant to seek postponement of the hearing of the appeal, and the respondents to oppose it; and looking simply at the situation of a matter ready to proceed in which the respondents who have as legitimate an interest in the appeal being disposed of, as the appellant had, first in bringing it on and, secondly, possibly in seeking its postponement, and again looking at it simply as an appeal involving questions of law which stand apart from the wider considerations which are the real motives of the parties, it seems to me I should not interfere with the appeal going forward in the ordinary course which has brought it to this hearing date of 16 December 1997. I bear in mind that when that date was fixed by the Registrar the appellant then opposed its being fixed. It seems to me that it was not out of the ordinary course for the Registrar to fix it in the way that he did and it further seems to me that not sufficient reason has been shown, connected with the appeal as an appeal on the specified questions of law, to warrant my acceding to the appellant's request. I therefore dismiss the application. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Perhaps I should add that counsel for the appellant suggested that in light of impending events which may have a direct effect on the utility of the appeal and the possibility that those events will take place tomorrow night, the present application should be adjourned to a date between now and 16 December. The same general reasons which I have already given led me to decline that request for an adjournment. The costs of this application are the costs of the two respondents in the appeal. I therefore dismiss the application.