Searle, B.A. v. Keayes, P. & Ors [1994] FCA 971

Searle, B.A. v. Keayes, P. & Ors [1994] FCA 971

The application for adjournment was refused because costs could not cure the prejudice to the applicant, the case management needs of the court and the interests of other litigants prevail, no adequate explanation for delay in seeking representation was provided, and it would be unfair to the applicant to allow recall of witnesses already cross-examined. There was insufficient justification to outweigh these factors.

Parties
Applicant: Bronwyn Ann Searle; First Respondent: Peter Keayes; Second Respondent: Richard Keayes; Third Respondent: Brisalebe AG Limited (ACN 060 401 827); Fifth Respondent: WSB (No 15) Pty Limited (ACN 055 949 016); Sixth Respondent: WSB (No 17) Pty Limited (ACN 058 901 170)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Application for Adjournment / Part Heard Trial, Interlocutory Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application for adjournment dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Vacation of Hearing, Discretion of Court, Costs
Practice and Procedure Adjournment Vacation of Hearing Discretion of Court Costs

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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bronwyn Ann Searle

Applicant

Peter Keayes

First Respondent

Richard Keayes

Second Respondent

Brisalebe AG Limited (ACN 060 401 827)

Third Respondent

WSB (No 15) Pty Limited (ACN 055 949 016)

Fifth Respondent

WSB (No 17) Pty Limited (ACN 058 901 170)

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Adjournment / Part Heard Trial, Interlocutory Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing should be adjourned and the hearing dates vacated given the change in representation for the first and sixth respondents and alleged disadvantage to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused because costs could not cure the prejudice to the applicant, the case management needs of the court and the interests of other litigants prevail, no adequate explanation for delay in seeking representation was provided, and it would be unfair to the applicant to allow recall of witnesses already cross-examined. There was insufficient justification to outweigh these factors.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for adjournment is dismissed with costs.