AWV18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1202

AWV18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1202

The appellants produced no sufficient evidence to justify adjourning an appeal that had been on foot for some time and was listed for hearing the following week, and there was no evidence or suggestion that an adjournment would enable them to advance their case more properly. The Court therefore refused the adjournment and ordered the first and second appellants to pay the Minister's costs of the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From AWV18 & Ors V Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 687 / Application to Adjourn the Hearing of the Appeal
Outcome
The appellants' application to adjourn the hearing of the appeal was dismissed, with costs ordered against the first and second appellants in favour of the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['appeals' 'adjournment Application' 'legal Representation' 'preparation for Appeal Hearing' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['appeals' 'adjournment Application' 'legal Representation' 'preparation for Appeal Hearing' '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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From AWV18 & Ors V Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 687 / Application to Adjourn the Hearing of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing of the appeal, set down for hearing in a week's time, should be adjourned because the appellants wished to seek or replace legal representation." 'Whether the first respondent should receive costs of the adjournment application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants produced no sufficient evidence to justify adjourning an appeal that had been on foot for some time and was listed for hearing the following week, and there was no evidence or suggestion that an adjournment would enable them to advance their case more properly. The Court therefore refused the adjournment and ordered the first and second appellants to pay the Minister's costs of the application.

Court Disposition

The appellants' application to adjourn the hearing of the appeal was dismissed, with costs ordered against the first and second appellants in favour of the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The appellants' application to adjourn the hearing of the appeal is dismissed." "The first and second appellants are to pay the first respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed or agreed."]