Scott v Handley [1999] FCA 404

Scott v Handley [1999] FCA 404

Although the trial judge was entitled on the information before him to reject the appellants' claim that they did not know the matter was listed for final hearing, the second respondent had served affidavit material nearly three months late and only six days before the hearing, did not inform the judge of that default or its possible consequences, and then took advantage of the appellants' inability as unrepresented litigants to articulate the basis for an adjournment. Had the default been disclosed, the judge would likely have viewed the adjournment application differently. The refusal of the adjournment therefore resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Orders of a Single Judge Dismissing Proceedings After Refusing an Adjournment / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders of Heerey J of 15 October 1998 set aside; matters remitted to Heerey J for directions for final hearing; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'appellate Review of Discretion' 'procedural Fairness' 'model Litigant Obligations' 'judicial Review' 'disability Support Pension']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'social Security'] ['adjournment' 'appellate Review of Discretion' 'procedural Fairness' 'model Litigant Obligations' 'judicial Review' 'disability Support Pension']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Orders of a Single Judge Dismissing Proceedings After Refusing an Adjournment / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's refusal to grant the appellants an adjournment resulted in a miscarriage of justice." "Whether the late service by the second respondent of affidavit material affected the appellants' ability to prepare for the final hearing." 'Whether the second respondent, as an officer of the Commonwealth, fell short of the standard of fair dealing expected in litigation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge was entitled on the information before him to reject the appellants' claim that they did not know the matter was listed for final hearing, the second respondent had served affidavit material nearly three months late and only six days before the hearing, did not inform the judge of that default or its possible consequences, and then took advantage of the appellants' inability as unrepresented litigants to articulate the basis for an adjournment. Had the default been disclosed, the judge would likely have viewed the adjournment application differently. The refusal of the adjournment therefore resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders of Heerey J of 15 October 1998 set aside; matters remitted to Heerey J for directions for final hearing; costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['The appeals be allowed.' 'The orders of Heerey J of 15 October 1998 be set aside.' "The notice of motion of the appellants dated 3 August 1998, the second respondent's notice of motion dated 3 April 1997 concerning relief sought by the appellants under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 remitted by the Full Court by...