BGA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 857

BGA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 857

The adjournment was refused because, on the limited material, the principal reason for the request was to enable Mr Williams to accept a brief that would create conflicting duties of his own making and leave him without capacity to prepare the appeal properly; there was no evidence explaining why the appellant had not engaged a practitioner earlier or why alternative competent counsel could not be retained, and Court resources and wasted expense weighed against adjournment despite the respondent's consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From BGA15 V Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 78 / Joint Application for Adjournment of Appeal
Outcome
Joint application for adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment by Consent' 'case Management' 'direct Access Counsel' 'conflicting Court Commitments' 'federal Court Rules Notice of Acting']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['adjournment by Consent' 'case Management' 'direct Access Counsel' 'conflicting Court Commitments' 'federal Court Rules Notice of Acting']

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

Appeal From BGA15 V Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 78 / Joint Application for Adjournment of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' joint application to vacate and adjourn the appeal hearing should be granted notwithstanding their consent." "Whether counsel's unavailability due to a pre-existing and conflicting court commitment justified an adjournment where counsel was engaged subject to an adjournment being granted." 'Whether the absence of evidence explaining delay in engaging a practitioner or why alternative competent counsel could not be retained weighed against an adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because, on the limited material, the principal reason for the request was to enable Mr Williams to accept a brief that would create conflicting duties of his own making and leave him without capacity to prepare the appeal properly; there was no evidence explaining why the appellant had not engaged a practitioner earlier or why alternative competent counsel could not be retained, and Court resources and wasted expense weighed against adjournment despite the respondent's consent.

Court Disposition

Joint application for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ["The parties' joint application for an adjournment made by email dated 2 May 2018 be refused."]