Steinke v Rubanmeadows Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 106

Steinke v Rubanmeadows Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 106

The Court was not persuaded that the trial date should be vacated because the respondent allowed Mr Eiro to leave Australia while the adjournment motion was pending, thereby taking the risk that the adjournment would not be granted, and any delay could prejudice the applicant's claim for reinstatement by potentially delaying reinstatement if granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding Involving a Primary Claim for Reinstatement or Re Employment / Respondent's Application to Vacate the Hearing Date Fixed for 2 April 1996
Outcome
The trial date was not vacated at this time; the respondent's motion was adjourned for further hearing if the respondent wished to progress it.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'vacating Hearing Date' 'witness Unavailability' 'reinstatement or Re Employment']
['industrial Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'vacating Hearing Date' 'witness Unavailability' 'reinstatement or Re Employment']

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

Industrial Law Proceeding Involving a Primary Claim for Reinstatement or Re Employment / Respondent's Application to Vacate the Hearing Date Fixed for 2 April 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing date fixed for 2 April 1996 should be vacated because the respondent's main and possibly only witness was overseas and unavailable to give evidence." "Whether delay would prejudice the applicant's claim for reinstatement or re-employment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not persuaded that the trial date should be vacated because the respondent allowed Mr Eiro to leave Australia while the adjournment motion was pending, thereby taking the risk that the adjournment would not be granted, and any delay could prejudice the applicant's claim for reinstatement by potentially delaying reinstatement if granted.

Court Disposition

The trial date was not vacated at this time; the respondent's motion was adjourned for further hearing if the respondent wished to progress it.

Orders

  • ['The motion, notice of which was filed by the respondent on 28 February 1996, be adjourned until 10.15 am on 2 April 1996.']