Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1726

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1726 Hearing dates: 16 November 2015 Decision date: 16 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: Decline the plaintiff's application for an adjournment Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment of hearing pending the convening of a Court of Appeal – application refused - no question of principle Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Lili Chel (Plaintiff) Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (First Defendant) Vanda Carson (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: R Rasmussen (Plaintiff) T Blackburn SC/L Barnett (Defendants)

Solicitors: Beazley Boorman Lawyers (Plaintiff) Banki Haddock Fiora Lawyers (Defendants) File Number(s): 2011/409423

Judgment (EX TEMPORE – REVISED) 1. The plaintiff has applied for an adjournment of these proceedings until 10 o'clock on Wednesday, 18 November 2015. 2. The plaintiff has this afternoon approached Macfarlan JA, for the Court of Appeal to be convened to consider whether leave to appeal against my decision made today to refuse the plaintiff's application for trial by jury ought be granted. 3. Mr Rasmussen submitted that the reason Macfarlan JA could not give a decision until 3pm tomorrow is because of a personal commitment and that tomorrow could be usefully employed by the parties in narrowing the issues and, to use his expression, "getting the plaintiff's house in order", in order that the plaintiff could, once again to quote his words, "kick off on Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock". 4. These proceedings were allocated a hearing date in April of this year. But for Mr Rasmussen's indisposition they would have begun on 9 November 2015. I would have thought that if the plaintiff's house were ever to be in order it would be in order by now. 5. Accordingly I decline the plaintiff's application for an adjournment and note that the Court of Appeal did not grant a stay this afternoon, although one was sought on behalf of the plaintiff. 6. As it is now 4.45pm, I will adjourn the Court until 10 o'clock in the morning at which time I would expect the plaintiff's case to be conducted as expeditiously as possible.