Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Sensaslim Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 3) [2012] FCA 939
The adjournment application was refused because the respondent had ample notice and opportunity to prepare, no convincing evidence of inability to fund representation or witness unavailability was presented, prejudice to applicant and third parties would result from delay, and objectives of timely, efficient, and just resolution are best served by proceeding as scheduled.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 August 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['adjournment of Hearing' 'procedural Fairness' 'representation' 'prejudice' 'effective Use of Judicial Resources']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a hearing of civil proceedings should be adjourned due to lack of legal representation and unavailability of a witness' 'Whether procedural fairness requires an adjournment in the circumstances']
Ratio Decidendi
The adjournment application was refused because the respondent had ample notice and opportunity to prepare, no convincing evidence of inability to fund representation or witness unavailability was presented, prejudice to applicant and third parties would result from delay, and objectives of timely, efficient, and just resolution are best served by proceeding as scheduled.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- ["The second respondent's interlocutory application filed on 24 August 2012 be dismissed with costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment