Salfinger v Nuigini Mining (Australia) Proprietary Limited (No.3) [2007] FCA 1385

Salfinger v Nuigini Mining (Australia) Proprietary Limited (No.3) [2007] FCA 1385

Although the Court accepted the applicant's evidence about the temporary disappearance of his daughter, the directions had been made about two and a half months earlier and almost a month had passed before that difficulty arose. The issues for the separate question were within a short compass, and the applicant had and would have adequate time to comply with directions so that the separate question could proceed on the fixed hearing dates. A limited extension was granted, but the motion seeking a longer extension was otherwise dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Motion in Federal Court Proceeding / Determination of the Applicant's Motion Dated 24 August 2007 to Vary an Order and Extend Time for Affidavit Evidence for a Separate Question
Outcome
Limited extensions of time granted; applicant's motion by notice dated 24 August 2007 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'court Directions' 'separate Question' 'assignment of Causes of Action']
['civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'court Directions' 'separate Question' 'assignment of Causes of Action']

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

Motion in Federal Court Proceeding / Determination of the Applicant's Motion Dated 24 August 2007 to Vary an Order and Extend Time for Affidavit Evidence for a Separate Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's time to provide affidavit evidence for the determination of the separate question should be extended by an additional three weeks from 27 August 2007." 'Whether granting the requested extension should require vacating the hearing dates fixed for 10 and 11 September 2007.' "Whether the applicant had adequate time to comply with the Court's directions notwithstanding the temporary disappearance of his daughter."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court accepted the applicant's evidence about the temporary disappearance of his daughter, the directions had been made about two and a half months earlier and almost a month had passed before that difficulty arose. The issues for the separate question were within a short compass, and the applicant had and would have adequate time to comply with directions so that the separate question could proceed on the fixed hearing dates. A limited extension was granted, but the motion seeking a longer extension was otherwise dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Limited extensions of time granted; applicant's motion by notice dated 24 August 2007 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's time to file and serve any affidavit material in relation to the separate question of the efficacy of the purported assignment be extended to 4pm on 4 September 2007." "The respondents' time to file and serve any affidavit material in reply be extended to 10am on 7 September 2007." "The applicant's...