Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ekes v Hyde Page (No 3) [2019] NSWCA 179 Hearing dates: 9 July 2019 Date of orders: 09 July 2019 Decision date: 09 July 2019 Before: Bell P at [1]; Payne JA at [6] Decision: Application for adjournment refused. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court of Appeal – application for leave to appeal – application for adjournment – application refused Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 471B Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(n) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Paul Ekes (Applicant) GHS Safety Products Australia Pty Limited (in liq) (First Respondent) John Hyde Page (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Wong (Applicant) J Hyde Page (Second Respondent) Solicitors: Gardner Ekes Lawyers (Applicant) File Number(s): 2019/00193026 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity – Corporations List Citation: [2019] NSWSC 668 Date of Decision: 6 June 2019 Before: Rees J File Number(s): 2018/00387725 [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Judgment – EX TEMPORE [Amended in accordance with the principles in Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123 at [194]] 1. BELL P: This matter was listed for hearing on a summons for leave to appeal at 10.15 this morning. The case has previously been case managed by Judge of Appeal, namely, Payne JA, who had previously sought confirmation as to the completeness and contents of the material which was to be before the Court on this application for leave to appeal. The matter came on for hearing this morning. 2. An application for leave to proceed was made by Ms Wong on behalf of Mr Paul Ekes, pursuant to s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and s 101(2)(n) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). About 20 minutes into her submissions Ms Wong was instructed to seek an adjournment of 14 days to seek to supplement the material before the Court. 3. No satisfactory explanation, in my opinion, has been given for the making of the application, particularly in circumstances where the case had previously been case managed and the adequacy of the material to be before the Court had been raised and confirmation had been sought and as I understand it, provided that there was no intention or need to supplement the material in the white book. 4. The Court of Appeal is a busy court which sets aside time in advance of hearings to prepare themselves, that is so the Justices, to prepare for the hearing of applications and it is quite unsatisfactory, particularly in a case which has been closely case managed such as this one, to begin it and then seek, without good reason, a further adjournment. 5. In those circumstances, in my opinion, the oral application for an adjournment should be refused. 6. PAYNE JA: I agree with the President. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 July 2019