Faustmann Bros Pty Ltd v Hans Traut [1983] FCA 63

Faustmann Bros Pty Ltd v Hans Traut [1983] FCA 63

Although the primary Judge may have placed too much emphasis on the appellant having discovered the two doctors by accident, his reasons showed that he weighed the parties' competing interests and relevant matters. The absence of the reports before him limited the view he could take of their significance, and he contemplated that the application could be renewed before the trial judge, who would be better placed to manage the evidence and any adjournment. No error warranting appellate interference was shown; in any event, the Court would have allowed the matter to proceed and be managed by the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 1983
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 From a Decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Refusing an Adjournment / Ex Tempore Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Hearing Dates' 'exercise of Discretion' 'new Evidence' 'medical Expert Evidence']
["workmen's Compensation" 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['adjournment of Hearing Dates' 'exercise of Discretion' 'new Evidence' 'medical Expert Evidence']

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

Appeal Under S.24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 From a Decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Refusing an Adjournment / Ex Tempore Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory erred in refusing to vacate the April 1983 hearing dates and adjourn the appeal to July 1983.' 'Whether new evidence in the form of reports from two medical specialists justified appellate interference with the discretionary refusal of an adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the primary Judge may have placed too much emphasis on the appellant having discovered the two doctors by accident, his reasons showed that he weighed the parties' competing interests and relevant matters. The absence of the reports before him limited the view he could take of their significance, and he contemplated that the application could be renewed before the trial judge, who would be better placed to manage the evidence and any adjournment. No error warranting appellate interference was shown; in any event, the Court would have allowed the matter to proceed and be managed by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.']