Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (In Liquidation) [2005] FCA 331

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (In Liquidation) [2005] FCA 331

There had been ample time for the third and fourth respondents to prepare; late payment of a fee did not justify adjournment; no sufficient affidavit evidence was provided; adjustments must be made in litigation of this kind, and any forensic disadvantage can be minimised by the Court.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (In Liquidation); Second Respondent: In Touch Networks Pty Ltd (ACN 098 279 746) (In Liquidation); Third Respondent: Nicholas Yates; Fourth Respondent: Frank Yates; Fifth Respondent: Nicholas Rhodin; Sixth Respondent: Daniel Albert; Seventh Respondent: Russell Fielding; Eighth Respondent: John Rhodin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Application / Application for Adjournment (interlocutory)
Outcome
application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Fair Hearing, Case Management
Civil Procedure Adjournment Fair Hearing Case Management

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 095 154 108) (In Liquidation)

First Respondent

In Touch Networks Pty Ltd (ACN 098 279 746) (In Liquidation)

Second Respondent

Nicholas Yates

Third Respondent

Frank Yates

Fourth Respondent

Nicholas Rhodin

Fifth Respondent

Daniel Albert

Sixth Respondent

Russell Fielding

Seventh Respondent

John Rhodin

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Application for Adjournment (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjournment should be granted due to late payment of fees, recent service of amended pleadings, unanswered interrogatories, and late affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

There had been ample time for the third and fourth respondents to prepare; late payment of a fee did not justify adjournment; no sufficient affidavit evidence was provided; adjustments must be made in litigation of this kind, and any forensic disadvantage can be minimised by the Court.

Court Disposition

application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • The application for adjournment is refused.