Martinek v Evans [2003] FCA 1403

Martinek v Evans [2003] FCA 1403

The applicant was not entitled to an extension of time because the purpose of the order reserving liberty to apply was not to permit a re-agitation of issues previously determined; no justification existed for an extension of time.

Parties
Applicant: Mary-Anne Martinek; Respondent: Mark Evans; Respondent: Chief of Army
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Motion to Extend Time to Vary Costs Order / Post Judgment Motion
Outcome
motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Costs Orders, Adjournment
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Costs Orders Adjournment

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary-Anne Martinek

Applicant

Mark Evans

Respondent

Chief of Army

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion to Extend Time to Vary Costs Order / Post Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply to vary a previous costs order
  2. 2 Whether an adjournment should be granted to obtain legal advice

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to an extension of time because the purpose of the order reserving liberty to apply was not to permit a re-agitation of issues previously determined; no justification existed for an extension of time.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion, notice of which was filed by the applicant on 3 October 2003, is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the motion.