Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1362

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1362

The adjournment was refused because the applicants had known since 2 October that the matter would be heard on 25 October, had received discovery, already possessed most of the documents, and their complaint about late filing or verification was only technical and insignificant; their involvement in other motions was of their own making and did not justify an adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for an Adjournment / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for an adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'discovery' 'compliance With Court Directions']
['civil Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'discovery' 'compliance With Court Directions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Adjournment / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the matter should be adjourned because of alleged non-compliance with discovery directions and the applicants' involvement in other notices of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the applicants had known since 2 October that the matter would be heard on 25 October, had received discovery, already possessed most of the documents, and their complaint about late filing or verification was only technical and insignificant; their involvement in other motions was of their own making and did not justify an adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for an adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an adjournment is refused.']