Background
Emad Awad and Ragaie Awad, interim joint administrators of two estates, filed a summons seeking leave to appeal and a notice of motion seeking a stay of orders made by Slattery J on 6 May 2026. The proceedings had a lengthy history concerning the estates of Gaber Ekladious Awad and Ognee Abd Elkodious Mikheil.
The applicants repeatedly sought to adjourn the leave application, principally because they were awaiting the transcript of the 6 May hearing and wanted time to consider amendments or supplementary appeal material. Their application for postponement of the transcript fee was approved on 14 September, and they received the transcript that afternoon. Separately, the first respondent, Nahed Awad, sought an adjournment after an accident required hospital treatment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court refused the applicants’ request to adjourn the leave application on the basis of the transcript. Applying the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), including the overriding purpose of a just, quick and cheap resolution, it held that 48 hours was sufficient for the applicants to review the transcript. Both had attended the 6 May hearing and had a broad recollection of it.
The Court nevertheless granted Nahed Awad’s later adjournment application. Although her medical certificate had shortcomings, it sufficiently supported the request. The Court adjourned both the leave application and stay motion to 28 September 2026, allowed the applicants to file proposed amendments or additional material by 23 September 2026, and made no costs order.
Key Takeaways
- Receipt of a hearing transcript shortly before an appeal hearing did not justify an adjournment where the applicants attended the hearing and had adequate time to review it.
- The Court gave substantial weight to the depletion of a relatively modest estate caused by continuing delay.
- A medical certificate, despite evident shortcomings, supported a short adjournment for an injured self-represented respondent.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Court of Appeal’s application of the overriding purpose to adjournment requests in estate litigation. A party seeking further time must show prejudice that outweighs the need to progress the case efficiently, particularly where delay reduces estate assets.
It also shows that the Court may distinguish between competing adjournment requests: refusing one based on litigation preparation while granting another supported by medical circumstances.