Sita Qld Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2000] FCA 469

Sita Qld Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2000] FCA 469

The application for adjournment was refused because the applicants failed to provide a sufficient explanation as to why the case could not be prepared in time for trial, especially in light of previous adjournments and the interests of all respondents in having the matter resolved.

Parties
First Applicant: SITA QLD PTY LTD; Second Applicant: HARLINGDALE PTY LTD; First Respondent: STATE OF QUEENSLAND; Third Respondent: THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND; Fourth Respondent: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (QUEENSLAND); Fifth Respondent: SURFSIDE BUSLINES PTY LTD; Sixth Respondent: RAYMOND GRAHAM CLARK AND YVONNE HAZEL CLARK TRADING AS CLARK'S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Adjournment in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Case Management, Costs
Civil Procedure Adjournment of Trial Case Management Costs

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SITA QLD PTY LTD

First Applicant

HARLINGDALE PTY LTD

Second Applicant

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

First Respondent

THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Third Respondent

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (QUEENSLAND)

Fourth Respondent

SURFSIDE BUSLINES PTY LTD

Fifth Respondent

RAYMOND GRAHAM CLARK AND YVONNE HAZEL CLARK TRADING AS CLARK'S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Adjournment in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned at the applicants' request
  2. 2 Whether applicants have shown sufficient cause for adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused because the applicants failed to provide a sufficient explanation as to why the case could not be prepared in time for trial, especially in light of previous adjournments and the interests of all respondents in having the matter resolved.

Court Disposition

application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • The application be refused.
  • The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings today.