Aucare Dairy (Aust) Pty Ltd v Huang (No 2) [2018] FCA 1428
The application for adjournment was refused on the basis that the evidence of likelihood of obtaining funding and legal representation was insufficient and did not justify delaying the trial at the prejudice of other litigants and the administration of justice.
- Parties
- First Applicant: Aucare Dairy (Aust) Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Yanfeng Bai; First Respondent: Yunling Huang; Second Respondent: Zhixin Guo; Third Respondent: Great Vision Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 160 577 033); Fourth Respondent: Noyier Dairy Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 166 299 216); Fifth Respondent: CFM Associates Pty Ltd (ACN 601 042 595); Sixth Respondent: Australia Green Dairy Pty Ltd (ACN 166 457 754); Seventh Respondent: Nutritional Choice Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 601 137 053); Eighth Respondent: Qiong Huang; Ninth Respondent: Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers Pty Ltd; Tenth Respondent: Grant Guenther
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 September 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application (application for Adjournment) / Ruling on Application for Adjournment Before Trial
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Trial, Legal Representation, Funding for Litigation, Prejudice to Parties, Court's Discretion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Aucare Dairy (Aust) Pty Ltd
First Applicant
Yanfeng Bai
Second Applicant
Yunling Huang
First Respondent
Zhixin Guo
Second Respondent
Great Vision Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 160 577 033)
Third Respondent
Noyier Dairy Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 166 299 216)
Fourth Respondent
CFM Associates Pty Ltd (ACN 601 042 595)
Fifth Respondent
Australia Green Dairy Pty Ltd (ACN 166 457 754)
Sixth Respondent
Nutritional Choice Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 601 137 053)
Seventh Respondent
Qiong Huang
Eighth Respondent
Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers Pty Ltd
Ninth Respondent
Grant Guenther
Tenth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (application for Adjournment) / Ruling on Application for Adjournment Before Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned to allow the first respondent to obtain legal representation and funding
- 2 Whether adequate evidence of likely funding and legal representation has been provided
- 3 Whether the balance of prejudice favours adjournment or proceeding
Ratio Decidendi
The application for adjournment was refused on the basis that the evidence of likelihood of obtaining funding and legal representation was insufficient and did not justify delaying the trial at the prejudice of other litigants and the administration of justice.
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment dismissed.
Orders
- The application for adjournment dated 3 September 2018 be dismissed.
- Costs be reserved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment