Australia, Sept. 6 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 5:

1. On 20 June 2025, by consent, Cavanagh J adjourned the hearing of the State's May 2025 motion to 4 August 2025: Longin v State of New South Wales (Unreported 20 June 2025). It seeking orders dismissing Ms Longin's September 2020 statement of claim for want of due despatch in circumstances where she has pleaded claims in negligence both personally and on behalf of her child as tutor for her child.

2. The latter claims were stayed by Chen J in May 2025, until a solicitor was engaged. But the matter is listed for hearing in November 2025, together with other proceedings which Ms Longin pursues against her former husband.

3. There is no issue that Ms Longin suffers PTSD. While originally legally represented and despite having sought pro bono assistance, as well as recently having sought to engage solicitors and counsel, she still has legal representation in these proceedings. Although she is represented in the other proceeding she pursues which are also listed for hearing in November.

4. Nor has Ms Longin amended her pleadings, despite having long accepted that they need to be, if this matter is to be heard and having repeatedly been given the opportunity to amend those pleadings.

5. In June the adjournment of the hearing of the State's motion was granted by Cavanagh J on the understanding that in order to do justice between these parties, the motion would have to be dealt with at the adjourned hearing in August, given the approaching 10-day hearing in November.

6. The position at the adjourned hearing was that Ms Longin had emailed, but not filed, a motion supported by an affidavit, by which she sought another adjournment of the hearing of the motion. She was granted leave to file the motion in court, that being consented to, but the adjournment was opposed and refused.

7. Annexed to her supporting affidavit was redacted correspondence which established that after the June hearing Ms Longin had engaged a private solicitor and paid undisclosed funds into trust, but on 30 July she had been advised that neither the solicitor nor counsel were able to act. She had not been able since then to engage others. The result was that the proceedings she pursues as tutor remain stayed.

8. It was in all those circumstances that I was satisfied that justice did not permit the further adjournment of the hearing of the motion. Despite then renewal of that application after an adjournment to allow the parties to confer.

9. Ms Longin's case being that she had made the necessary efforts to obtain legal representation and that her inability to do so was the result of circumstances beyond her control and that accordingly, she required a further adjournment in order to be able to properly advance her case.

10. The case pressed by the State was that the interests of justice required that the adjournment be refused and the Court make self-executing orders of the kind made by McCallum J in Ferrier v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1806, which would bring the proceedings brought as tutor to an end if a solicitor was not promptly appointed. Further, that Ms Longin still not having amended her statement of claim, her claims should be dismissed for want of due despatch, she having had a fair opportunity to advance her case by pleading amendment.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19877eb16fd5b16fe4f59103)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.