Portelli v Goh [2002] NSWSC 132

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Portelli v Goh [2002] NSWSC 132 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12861/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 18 February 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 February 2002

PARTIES : Peter Mario Portelli v Shueh Liang Goh JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J at 1

COUNSEL : In person assisted by Mr B. White (Plaintiff) T. Wolf (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Peter Reiner & Associates (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - ADJOURNMENT TO PERMIT AMENDMENT DECISION : ADJOURNMENT GRANTED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Monday 18 February 2002

12861/01 - PETER MARIO PORTELLI v SHUEH LIANG GOH

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The appellant/plaintiff, being unprepared to proceed today having foreshadowed but not yet perfected amendments to the amended summons, I adjourn the matter to Monday 4 March next. 2 WOLF: Would your Honour hear me as to that date? (Permission granted). Mr White has indicated he would need two weeks to line the matters up. I have indicated on the next occasion I would like the matter heard. On that occasion it might be appropriate for the amended summons or that appeal document, together with any affidavit and supporting documents, to be filed and served on 4 March which would give him, at least, an opportunity to prepare the documents. 3 HIS HONOUR: That sounds sensible. Mr White, what do you say? 4 WHITE: I understood him to be saying two weeks to amend and another week for any further documents. 5 HIS HONOUR: Yes. 6 WHITE: Oh yes. 7 HIS HONOUR: It has been pointed out that it is desirable, and I agree, that this matter should, on the next occasion, be heard. I therefore give a direction that any amendment to the amended summons is to be filed and served on or before 4 March 2002, together with any affidavit or other material upon which the plaintiff, Peter Mario Portelli, seeks to rely. I direct that the matter then be adjourned for hearing on Monday 11 March next. 8 There is a dispute relating to the costs of today. It is said that the new proposed amendments should have been prepared by today and I think there is force in that submission. Mr White, whom I have given leave to represent Mr Portelli, gave what he purported to describe as reasons why he should not pay the costs thrown away for today's proceedings. The only one he gave of substance was there was a foreshadowing of the desire to make the amendments. In those circumstances, I think the appropriate order is that the costs of today should be the defendant's costs in the proceedings.