Agnish Pty Limited v Folio Invest Pty Limited (No 3) [2019] FCA 1650

Agnish Pty Limited v Folio Invest Pty Limited (No 3) [2019] FCA 1650

The hearing was adjourned because the applicant filed its outline of submissions at 5:15pm on the last business day before the hearing, after delayed compliance with the timetabling orders and without explanation, leaving the unrepresented third respondent with inadequate time to respond and to seek legal advice. Although the third respondent had been late in filing his defence, the applicant was primarily responsible for the matter not being able to proceed as scheduled.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations Proceeding Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Arising From an Investment in a Real Property Development / Third Respondent's Request for Adjournment of the Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Adjournment granted; hearing adjourned to 23 December 2019 at 10:15 am, with costs thrown away by the adjournment to be the third respondent's costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'investment in Real Property Development' 'adjournment' 'default Judgment' 'deregistration of Corporate Respondents' 'costs Thrown Away']
['commercial and Corporations' 'regulator and Consumer Protection' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'investment in Real Property Development' 'adjournment' 'default Judgment' 'deregistration of Corporate Respondents' 'costs Thrown Away']

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

Commercial and Corporations Proceeding Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Arising From an Investment in a Real Property Development / Third Respondent's Request for Adjournment of the Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the substantive hearing should be adjourned on the third respondent's request." "Whether the applicant's late filing of submissions left the third respondent with inadequate time to respond." 'What costs order should be made for costs thrown away by the adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing was adjourned because the applicant filed its outline of submissions at 5:15pm on the last business day before the hearing, after delayed compliance with the timetabling orders and without explanation, leaving the unrepresented third respondent with inadequate time to respond and to seek legal advice. Although the third respondent had been late in filing his defence, the applicant was primarily responsible for the matter not being able to proceed as scheduled.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted; hearing adjourned to 23 December 2019 at 10:15 am, with costs thrown away by the adjournment to be the third respondent's costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The matter be adjourned for hearing, with an estimate of one day, to 23 December 2019 at 10:15 am.' 'The third respondent file and serve an outline of submissions, not exceeding 10 pages in length, by 20 November 2019.' 'The applicant file and serve any submissions in reply, not exceeding five pages in length, by...