Simjanovska v Department of Human Services (No 1) [2019] FCA 1703

Simjanovska v Department of Human Services (No 1) [2019] FCA 1703

The adjournment was refused because the applicant had known of the hearing date for months, had already received several extensions of time, and the evidence relied on was weak, speculative or unsupported and did not show that her computer difficulties, lost USBs, alleged injuries, living arrangements or other matters prevented her from preparing or presenting her case. The overarching purpose and the desirability of finality weighed against a further adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal; Interlocutory Application for Adjournment / Interlocutory Application Heard Before the Scheduled Hearing of the Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Hearing' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'self Represented Litigant' 'overarching Purpose of Civil Practice and Procedure' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['adjournment of Hearing' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'self Represented Litigant' 'overarching Purpose of Civil Practice and Procedure' '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

Application for Leave to Appeal; Interlocutory Application for Adjournment / Interlocutory Application Heard Before the Scheduled Hearing of the Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing of the application for leave to appeal listed for 18 October 2019 should be adjourned until December 2019.' "Whether the applicant's evidence about personal circumstances, computer difficulties, lost USBs, injuries and living arrangements justified an adjournment." "Whether related orders should be made allowing further affidavit evidence, amended submissions, reply submissions, directions for an appeal, or provision of a sealed copy of Perry J's judgment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the applicant had known of the hearing date for months, had already received several extensions of time, and the evidence relied on was weak, speculative or unsupported and did not show that her computer difficulties, lost USBs, alleged injuries, living arrangements or other matters prevented her from preparing or presenting her case. The overarching purpose and the desirability of finality weighed against a further adjournment.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 15 October 2019 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application, as agreed or taxed."]