Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2009] FCA 1589

Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2009] FCA 1589

The applicant's late request for an adjournment was unsupported by evidence and gave no particularity about the alleged medical reasons or the lateness of the application. The applicant then failed to appear without sufficient cause or reason. The adjournment was refused and the notices of motion were dismissed for want of appearance, with costs to the first and second respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Two Notices of Motion in an Appeal From a Sequestration Order / Hearing of Notices of Motion; Applicant Sought Adjournment and Failed to Appear
Outcome
Applicant's notices of motion dismissed for want of appearance; applicant ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents in relation to the notices of motion, including reserved costs.
Legal Topics
['sequestration Order' 'security for Costs' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'adjournment' 'dismissal for Want of Appearance' 'costs']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['sequestration Order' 'security for Costs' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'adjournment' 'dismissal for Want of Appearance' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Two Notices of Motion in an Appeal From a Sequestration Order / Hearing of Notices of Motion; Applicant Sought Adjournment and Failed to Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's late facsimile should be treated as and granted as an application for adjournment of the notices of motion." "Whether the applicant's notices of motion should be dismissed for want of appearance." 'Whether the order for security for costs should be set aside.' 'Whether leave should be given to continue the proceeding as if the appearance for the second respondent had not been entered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's late request for an adjournment was unsupported by evidence and gave no particularity about the alleged medical reasons or the lateness of the application. The applicant then failed to appear without sufficient cause or reason. The adjournment was refused and the notices of motion were dismissed for want of appearance, with costs to the first and second respondents.

Court Disposition

Applicant's notices of motion dismissed for want of appearance; applicant ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents in relation to the notices of motion, including reserved costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notices of motion, both dated 9 February 2009 are dismissed." 'The applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents in relation to the notices of motion, including any costs reserved.']