Ghosh v Newton (No 3) [2024] FCA 897

Ghosh v Newton (No 3) [2024] FCA 897

The adjournment was refused because the defaults in the timetable did not justify an adjournment, the out-of-time affidavits were not so significant as to require an adjournment, the Court had set aside the day to hear the matter and outstanding interlocutory applications, respondent's counsel had been briefed, and it was not in the interests of the public or the parties overall to adjourn the matter to another date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application to Adjourn Hearing / Application Dismissed at Hearing on 1 August 2024
Outcome
Adjournment application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment Application' 'procedural Timetable Defaults' 'interlocutory Relief' 'self Represented Litigant' 'pro Bono Solicitor Panel Referral']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'general and Personal Insolvency'] ['adjournment Application' 'procedural Timetable Defaults' 'interlocutory Relief' 'self Represented Litigant' 'pro Bono Solicitor Panel Referral']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Application to Adjourn Hearing / Application Dismissed at Hearing on 1 August 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defaults in the procedural timetable justified an adjournment of the hearing.' "Whether Dr Ghosh's inability to obtain legal representation and asserted need for legal assistance justified an adjournment." "Whether the matter should proceed given the Court had set aside the day and respondent's counsel was briefed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the defaults in the timetable did not justify an adjournment, the out-of-time affidavits were not so significant as to require an adjournment, the Court had set aside the day to hear the matter and outstanding interlocutory applications, respondent's counsel had been briefed, and it was not in the interests of the public or the parties overall to adjourn the matter to another date.

Court Disposition

Adjournment application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Dr Ghosh's adjournment application be dismissed."]