Phillip Davis and Portseal Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 9

Phillip Davis and Portseal Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 9

The application to vacate the hearing date was refused as the respondent had knowledge of its principals’ travel many months in advance and did not take reasonable steps to avoid a clash with the assigned hearing date; the court’s policy favours expeditious handling of matters potentially affecting employment and earning capacity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Compensation for Unlawful Termination / Interlocutory; Application to Vacate Hearing Date
Outcome
Respondent's application to vacate hearing date dismissed; applicant awarded costs of the day.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'vacation of Hearing Date' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Compensation for Unlawful Termination / Interlocutory; Application to Vacate Hearing Date

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing date should be vacated due to overseas absence of respondent’s principal witnesses' 'Whether the respondent acted unreasonably in seeking to vacate the hearing date at short notice' 'Entitlement to costs arising from interlocutory application']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vacate the hearing date was refused as the respondent had knowledge of its principals’ travel many months in advance and did not take reasonable steps to avoid a clash with the assigned hearing date; the court’s policy favours expeditious handling of matters potentially affecting employment and earning capacity.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application to vacate hearing date dismissed; applicant awarded costs of the day.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion of the Respondent dismissed.' 'Applicant’s costs of the day to be met by the Respondent in accordance with the Federal Court scale.']