Essential Beauty Franchising Pty Ltd v Essential Beauty (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 440
The detriment to the applicants from not varying the timetable or hearing dates does not outweigh the interests of justice in proceeding as scheduled. Evidence did not establish that only the sole director could give essential instructions. The potential long delay in rescheduling would not serve the interests of justice.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 April 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Application / Interlocutory (application to Vary Hearing Date)
- Outcome
- application refused
- Legal Topics
- []
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory (application to Vary Hearing Date)
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the hearing dates should be vacated or varied due to applicants' timetable difficulties and the sole director's overseas absence"]
Ratio Decidendi
The detriment to the applicants from not varying the timetable or hearing dates does not outweigh the interests of justice in proceeding as scheduled. Evidence did not establish that only the sole director could give essential instructions. The potential long delay in rescheduling would not serve the interests of justice.
Court Disposition
application refused
Orders
- ['The application be refused.']
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