Lohse v Arthur (No 2) [2009] FCA 1077

Lohse v Arthur (No 2) [2009] FCA 1077

The circumstances and materials do not reasonably warrant an adjournment; respondents' counsel is competent to address the issues without further evidence or delay, and there was sufficient notice of arguments to be raised, including reliance on Applicant VEAL.

Parties
Applicant: Michael James Lohse; First Respondent: Ian Allan Arthur; Second Respondent: Geoff McKinnon; Third Respondent: Janet Coppin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory (adjournment Application)
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Construction, Public Service Act 1999 (cth), Code of Conduct
Administrative Law Adjournment Procedural Fairness Statutory Construction Public Service Act 1999 (cth) Code of Conduct

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

Michael James Lohse

Applicant

Ian Allan Arthur

First Respondent

Geoff McKinnon

Second Respondent

Janet Coppin

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory (adjournment Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjournment should be granted to allow for addressing new issues in judicial review
  2. 2 Whether statutory construction under s 13(3) of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) raises two separate obligations
  3. 3 Whether there was compliance with Secretary's Procedures for APS Code of Conduct regarding opportunity to make oral statement

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances and materials do not reasonably warrant an adjournment; respondents' counsel is competent to address the issues without further evidence or delay, and there was sufficient notice of arguments to be raised, including reliance on Applicant VEAL.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • The respondents' application for an adjournment be refused.