Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Bon Levi (No 2) [2008] FCA 788

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Bon Levi (No 2) [2008] FCA 788

The Court dismissed the adjournment application because the asserted unavailability of Mr Levi's lawyers was inferred to be part of a strategy to delay the trial, any prejudice or inconvenience resulted from Mr Levi's own conduct in engaging unavailable lawyers and not ensuring preparation, the matter was not shown to be too complex or impossible for new counsel to prepare before 10 June 2008, objections to affidavit evidence could be dealt with at trial, concerns about the trial estimate were speculative, and the public interest favoured the timely hearing of the contempt charges.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceeding / First Respondent's Notice of Motion for Adjournment of Trial
Outcome
The first respondent's application to adjourn the trial was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Trial' 'unavailability of Counsel' 'counsel of Choice' 'prejudice' 'public Interest' 'admissibility Objections']
['civil Procedure' 'contempt of Court'] ['adjournment of Trial' 'unavailability of Counsel' 'counsel of Choice' 'prejudice' 'public Interest' 'admissibility Objections']

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

Contempt of Court Proceeding / First Respondent's Notice of Motion for Adjournment of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial of the contempt charge against the first respondent should be adjourned because his chosen counsel and solicitor were unavailable on the trial dates.' 'Whether alleged complexity, volume of documents, objections to affidavit evidence, and possible insufficiency of the four-day trial estimate justified an adjournment.' 'Whether the public interest in timely hearing of alleged breaches of court orders weighed against adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the adjournment application because the asserted unavailability of Mr Levi's lawyers was inferred to be part of a strategy to delay the trial, any prejudice or inconvenience resulted from Mr Levi's own conduct in engaging unavailable lawyers and not ensuring preparation, the matter was not shown to be too complex or impossible for new counsel to prepare before 10 June 2008, objections to affidavit evidence could be dealt with at trial, concerns about the trial estimate were speculative, and the public interest favoured the timely hearing of the contempt charges.

Court Disposition

The first respondent's application to adjourn the trial was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent's notice of motion dated 16 May 2008 is dismissed."]