Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 8) [2020] FCA 274

Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 8) [2020] FCA 274

The adjournment was refused because Mr Martin had taken no steps to seek leave to appeal from the interlocutory ruling, provided no affidavit or draft High Court application explaining or evidencing the foreshadowed proceeding, delayed until the eve of a five-day trial without a sufficient explanation, showed little likelihood that the High Court would permit the course proposed, and any prejudice if he later succeeded could be remedied by costs or other orders. The Court was also not persuaded that any jurisdictional issue in NSD1610/2016 justified adjourning SAD49/2017.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Adjournment of Trial / Application Heard on the First Day of the Trial Listed for 2 6 March 2020
Outcome
Mr Martin's interlocutory application for an adjournment of the trial was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Trial' 'case Management' 'constitutional Writs of Prohibition and Certiorari' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders' 'jurisdiction of a Single Judge and Full Court']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'constitutional Law'] ['adjournment of Trial' 'case Management' 'constitutional Writs of Prohibition and Certiorari' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders' 'jurisdiction of a Single Judge and Full Court']

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

Interlocutory Application for Adjournment of Trial / Application Heard on the First Day of the Trial Listed for 2 6 March 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial should be adjourned because Mr Martin foreshadowed an application to the High Court of Australia under s 75 of the Constitution for writs of prohibition and certiorari to quash interlocutory orders and restrain the trial judge from hearing NSD1610/2016.' 'Whether the Court should review its earlier ruling that a single judge had jurisdiction to hear and determine NSD1610/2016 and remit that matter to a Full Court.' 'Whether any issue concerning NSD1610/2016 justified adjourning SAD49/2017.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because Mr Martin had taken no steps to seek leave to appeal from the interlocutory ruling, provided no affidavit or draft High Court application explaining or evidencing the foreshadowed proceeding, delayed until the eve of a five-day trial without a sufficient explanation, showed little likelihood that the High Court would permit the course proposed, and any prejudice if he later succeeded could be remedied by costs or other orders. The Court was also not persuaded that any jurisdictional issue in NSD1610/2016 justified adjourning SAD49/2017.

Court Disposition

Mr Martin's interlocutory application for an adjournment of the trial was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["In SAD 49 of 2017, the Applicant's interlocutory application for an adjournment of the trial set down for 2-6 March 2020 be dismissed." "In NSD 1610 of 2016, the Respondent's interlocutory application for an adjournment of the trial set down for 2-6 March 2020 be dismissed."]