Yerbury v Macquarie University [2007] NSWSC 551

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Yerbury v Macquarie University [2007] NSWSC 551

HEARING DATE(S) : 29/05/07 JUDGMENT OF : Gzell J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 29 May 2007

DECISION : Short adjournment granted.

CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE - Miscellaneous procedural matters - Adjournments - Whether defendant entitled to an adjournment of an application to vary consent orders to put on evidence to ground its opposition to the application - No principles involved

PARTIES : Dianne Yerbury - Plaintiff Macquarie University - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2465/07

COUNSEL : Mr J Castaldi - Plaintiff Mr R Goot SC/ Mr P Carr - Defendant

SOLICITORS : Verekers Lawyers - Plaintiff Freehills Solicitors - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

GZELL J

TUESDAY 29 MAY 2007

2465/07 DIANNE YERBURY v MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1 By notice of motion filed on 27 April 2007, Dianne Yerbury, the plaintiff, sought various orders with respect to the inspection of documents in a considerable number of boxes held at the offices of Minter Ellison. 2 Included in the orders proposed by Ms Yerbury was an order that Macquarie University, the defendant, might nominate a person or persons to be present during Ms Yerbury's inspection of the documents and such person or persons, up to a maximum of three at any one time, might remain in the room in which Ms Yerbury undertook the inspection throughout that process. 3 That proposed order found its way into paragraph 3 of the orders made by consent on 1 May 2007. 4 Ms Yerbury now seeks to vary those consent orders by extending the time by which her inspection of the documents is to be completed and the time by which she is to provide a verified list identifying any documents for which she makes a proprietary or confidential claim and by deleting paragraph 3. 5 The application is opposed so far as the deletion of paragraph 3 is concerned, the University seeking an adjournment to put on evidence. I am informed that the affidavits can be available by Friday of this week, or by Thursday at a pinch. The solicitors for the University were given notice of the prospective application at noon on Thursday of last week. 6 The issue is a confined one and I see no reason why the affidavits sought to be relied upon by the University cannot be served by Thursday of this week. 7 In my view, the justice of the matter requires that I accede to the application for an adjournment to enable the University to put on evidence to ground its opposition to the application. 8 I order the defendant to serve on the plaintiff by no later than 4.00 pm on Thursday 31 May 2007 all affidavits upon which it intends to rely in opposition to the plaintiff's application to vary the consent orders made on 1 May 2007. I stand the matter over before the Duty Judge at 10.00 am on Friday 1 June 2007. By consent I vary paragraph 2 of the consent orders by substituting 13 June 2007 for 29 May 2007 and by substituting 26 June 2007 for 12 June 2007 in paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b). I reserve costs.