Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2009] FCA 303

Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2009] FCA 303

The adjournment was refused because the proceeding had been on foot since April 2005, concerned events in 1999, had a long history of non-compliance and mismanagement by the Applicant, and was part-heard only because the Applicant had dismissed its counsel and solicitors weeks earlier. The Applicant supported the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Adjournment of a Part Heard Federal Court Trial / Part Heard Trial; Oral Adjournment Application on 23 March 2009
Outcome
The Applicant's oral application on 23 March 2009 for adjournment of the part-heard trial was refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'case Management' 'procedural Fairness' 'representation of Corporations' 'security for Costs' 'costs Thrown Away']
['civil Procedure' 'federal Court Practice and Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'case Management' 'procedural Fairness' 'representation of Corporations' 'security for Costs' 'costs Thrown Away']

Source-derived case record

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 Adjournment of a Part Heard Federal Court Trial / Part Heard Trial; Oral Adjournment Application on 23 March 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's oral application for a further adjournment of the part-heard trial should be granted." 'Whether refusal of the adjournment would deny the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to present its case in the circumstances of the proceeding.' 'Whether the Applicant had provided good reasons and evidence supporting an adjournment at a late stage of a long-running proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the proceeding had been on foot since April 2005, concerned events in 1999, had a long history of non-compliance and mismanagement by the Applicant, and was part-heard only because the Applicant had dismissed its counsel and solicitors weeks earlier. The Applicant supported the late oral adjournment application only by statements from the Bar Table, gave no sworn evidence explaining why counsel was not available or why the brief had been returned, did not identify how long an adjournment was sought, and proposed no alternative management pathway. In those circumstances, the interests of justice did not require further delay, and the Respondents were...

Court Disposition

The Applicant's oral application on 23 March 2009 for adjournment of the part-heard trial was refused.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's oral application on 23 March 2009 for adjournment of the part-heard trial is refused."]