Unilever Aust Ltd v George Karounos & Anor [2001] FCA 148

Unilever Aust Ltd v George Karounos & Anor [2001] FCA 148

The adjournment was refused because there was no evidence that Mr Karounos had taken steps since the previous adjournment to obtain representation or had any real prospect of obtaining legal aid, while further delay after the lengthy history of the proceedings would cause additional expense and considerable injustice to Unilever. The Court would therefore proceed and hear any no case to answer submissions immediately.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the Second Respondent to Vacate or Adjourn the Hearing and Defer a No Case to Answer Submission
Outcome
Adjournment refused; proceedings to continue.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'case Management' 'self Represented Litigant' 'legal Aid' 'no Case to Answer']
['civil Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'case Management' 'self Represented Litigant' 'legal Aid' 'no Case to Answer']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the Second Respondent to Vacate or Adjourn the Hearing and Defer a No Case to Answer Submission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing should be vacated or adjourned to allow Mr Karounos to seek legal aid or legal representation.' 'Whether the no case to answer submission should be deferred to a later date or heard immediately during the continuing hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because there was no evidence that Mr Karounos had taken steps since the previous adjournment to obtain representation or had any real prospect of obtaining legal aid, while further delay after the lengthy history of the proceedings would cause additional expense and considerable injustice to Unilever. The Court would therefore proceed and hear any no case to answer submissions immediately.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; proceedings to continue.

Orders

  • ['The application to adjourn or stand over the hearing was refused.' 'Mr Karounos was permitted to make submissions immediately on whether Unilever had brought a case for him to answer.']