Perre v Risu Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1210

Perre v Risu Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1210

The adjournment was refused because the proposed written-submissions course was unfair and impracticable in light of disputed facts; the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence of hardship, of steps taken to obtain representation, or of a real prospect that an adjournment would secure representation or serve a useful purpose; and the long-running matter was ready for trial with significant prejudice to the former solicitors and a public interest in finality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Adjournment in Federal Court Civil Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Immediately Before Listed Hearing
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; costs of the motion adjourned.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' "former Solicitors' Costs" 'settlement Proceeds' 'legal Representation' 'written Submissions' 'disputed Facts' 'calderbank Offer Issue']
['civil Procedure' 'legal Costs' 'professional Negligence'] ['adjournment' "former Solicitors' Costs" 'settlement Proceeds' 'legal Representation' 'written Submissions' 'disputed Facts' 'calderbank Offer Issue']

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

Notice of Motion for Adjournment in Federal Court Civil Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Immediately Before Listed Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing listed since March 2006 should be adjourned after the applicants' solicitors ceased to act." "Whether the applicants' proposed procedure of determining non-negligence issues by written submissions while deferring negligence issues was practicable and fair." 'Whether a short adjournment should be granted to allow the applicants to adduce further evidence in support of an adjournment application or obtain legal representation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the proposed written-submissions course was unfair and impracticable in light of disputed facts; the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence of hardship, of steps taken to obtain representation, or of a real prospect that an adjournment would secure representation or serve a useful purpose; and the long-running matter was ready for trial with significant prejudice to the former solicitors and a public interest in finality.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; costs of the motion adjourned.

Orders

  • ['The application for an adjournment is refused.' 'The costs of the motion are adjourned.']