Howes v Comcare (No 1) [2016] FCA 1396

Howes v Comcare (No 1) [2016] FCA 1396

No sufficient basis was demonstrated to disturb the hearing date because the appeal should be heard and determined as soon as reasonably practicable, the claim dated back several years, and junior counsel was very familiar with the litigation and able to represent the applicant despite senior counsel's unavailability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in an Appeal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Application to Vacate the Scheduled Hearing Date
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed; costs of the interlocutory application to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'vacating Hearing Date' 'unavailability of Senior Counsel' 'overarching Purpose' 'comcare Liability for Medical Expenses']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'workers Compensation'] ['adjournment' 'vacating Hearing Date' 'unavailability of Senior Counsel' 'overarching Purpose' 'comcare Liability for Medical Expenses']

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

Interlocutory Application in an Appeal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Application to Vacate the Scheduled Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing date for the applicant's appeal should be vacated because senior counsel was unavailable due to overseas medical treatment." 'Whether the interests of justice and the overarching purpose provisions justified keeping the appeal listed for hearing on 14 December 2016.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sufficient basis was demonstrated to disturb the hearing date because the appeal should be heard and determined as soon as reasonably practicable, the claim dated back several years, and junior counsel was very familiar with the litigation and able to represent the applicant despite senior counsel's unavailability.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed; costs of the interlocutory application to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application dated 14 November 2016 be dismissed.' 'Costs of the interlocutory application be costs in the cause.']