McKenzie v Department of Urban Services [2001] FCA 451

McKenzie v Department of Urban Services [2001] FCA 451

Leave to appeal was refused because, on the material before the Court, there was no arguable basis to conclude that the Magistrate's discretion miscarried in refusing the adjournment. Granting leave would in practical effect adjourn the listed hearing, which was undesirable without a proper arguable basis. The application for a stay was dismissed because leave to appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Stay / Interlocutory Application Arising From Refusal of an Adjournment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for stay dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'stay of Proceedings' 'adjournment' 'judicial Discretion' 'self Represented Litigant' 'disability Discrimination Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'discrimination Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'stay of Proceedings' 'adjournment' 'judicial Discretion' 'self Represented Litigant' 'disability Discrimination Proceedings']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Stay / Interlocutory Application Arising From Refusal of an Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the Magistrate's refusal to adjourn proceedings listed for hearing on 26 March 2001." 'Whether the proceedings should be stayed pending any appeal.' "Whether there was an arguable basis that the Magistrate's discretion miscarried in refusing the adjournment."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because, on the material before the Court, there was no arguable basis to conclude that the Magistrate's discretion miscarried in refusing the adjournment. Granting leave would in practical effect adjourn the listed hearing, which was undesirable without a proper arguable basis. The application for a stay was dismissed because leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for stay dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application filed on 22 March 2001 for leave to appeal is dismissed.' 'The application filed on 22 March 2001 for a stay of the proceedings is dismissed.']