Alhalek v Quintiliani trading as Kells Lawyers [2021] FCAFC 139

Alhalek v Quintiliani trading as Kells Lawyers [2021] FCAFC 139

The application for adjournment was refused as it was unsupported by evidence or a cogent explanation, and granting it would be inconsistent with the statutory obligations to conduct proceedings expeditiously and efficiently. Repeated prior warnings and opportunities were given, but the applicant failed to comply with the requirements.

Parties
Applicant: Kyled Alhalek; Respondents: Mario Quintiliani, Peter Chodat, David Potts, Amy Harper, Michael Hatfield and Paul Maganino t/as Kells Lawyers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing of Adjournment Application on Appeal
Outcome
Application for adjournment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Civil Procedure, Federal Court Obligations, Costs
Practice and Procedure Adjournment Civil Procedure Federal Court Obligations 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kyled Alhalek

Applicant

Mario Quintiliani, Peter Chodat, David Potts, Amy Harper, Michael Hatfield and Paul Maganino t/as Kells Lawyers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Hearing of Adjournment Application on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds for a further adjournment of the appeal hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused as it was unsupported by evidence or a cogent explanation, and granting it would be inconsistent with the statutory obligations to conduct proceedings expeditiously and efficiently. Repeated prior warnings and opportunities were given, but the applicant failed to comply with the requirements.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment dismissed.

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The costs of the application for adjournment be costs in the cause.