Smith and Greenfield Products [1994] IRCA 161

Indefinite adjournment refused because settlement was not finalised and to prevent loss of court control; matters are stood over for further directions instead.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 16 January 1995
Procedural Posture: Application to Vacate Hearing Dates / Part Heard; Orders for Further Directions
Outcome: Application to vacate hearing dates dismissed; application for indefinite adjournment refused; directions hearing ordered; costs reserved.
Legal Topics: ['application to Vacate Hearing Dates' 'settlement' 'adjournment' 'directions Hearing']

['industrial Law'] ['application to Vacate Hearing Dates' 'settlement' 'adjournment' 'directions Hearing']

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

Procedural Posture

Application to Vacate Hearing Dates / Part Heard; Orders for Further Directions

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether hearing dates should be vacated' 'Whether matter should be adjourned indefinitely following settlement in principle' 'Arrangements for taking evidence from remote witnesses']

Ratio Decidendi

Indefinite adjournment refused because settlement was not finalised and to prevent loss of court control; matters are stood over for further directions instead.

Court Disposition

Application to vacate hearing dates dismissed; application for indefinite adjournment refused; directions hearing ordered; costs reserved.

Orders

['Paragraph one of Notice of Motion to vacate hearing dates dismissed. Hearing to proceed on 22 and 23 December 1994 at specified times.' 'Parties to confer with Sydney District Registrar to arrange video link facilities for interstate witnesses; disputes may be referred to the Judicial Registrar.' 'Paragraph two of...