Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 87

Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 87

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for an adjournment as there was inadequate explanation for the absence of Mr Newell, no effort to seek alternative representation, and existing written submissions had already been provided. Thus, the application for adjournment was dismissed with costs.

Parties
Applicant to the Interlocutory Adjournment Application: Margo Young; First Respondent to the Interlocutory Adjournment Application: Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd; Second Respondent to the Interlocutory Adjournment Application: Stephen John Perrens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Determination of Interlocutory Adjournment Application
Outcome
Application for adjournment dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Applications, Adjournment, Special Costs Applications
Commercial and Corporations Insolvency Interlocutory Applications Adjournment Special Costs Applications

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

Margo Young

Applicant to the Interlocutory Adjournment Application

Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd

First Respondent to the Interlocutory Adjournment Application

Stephen John Perrens

Second Respondent to the Interlocutory Adjournment Application

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Determination of Interlocutory Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjournment of the hearing of a stay application should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for an adjournment as there was inadequate explanation for the absence of Mr Newell, no effort to seek alternative representation, and existing written submissions had already been provided. Thus, the application for adjournment was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The interlocutory application dated 27 January 2017 brought by Ms Young to adjourn the hearing of the stay application be dismissed with costs.