Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1222

Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1222

It would be an inappropriate exercise of the Court's discretion to grant an adjournment in the absence of clear indication of what the further evidence is, particularly considering potential prejudice to respondents and their preparation for hearing.

Parties
Applicant: Temwell Pty Ltd; First Respondent: DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd (In Liquidation); Second Respondent: mCOM Solutions Inc.; Third Respondent: Dragon Ventures. Com Inc; Fourth Respondent: mCOM Solutions Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation); Fifth Respondent: David Hains; Sixth Respondent: Robert Van Zanten; Seventh Respondent: Dragonventures.com Ltd; Eighth Respondent: Richard Hains; Ninth Respondent: Ian Morris Kiefel; Cross Claimant: mCOM Solutions Inc.; Cross Claimant: mCOM Solutions Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation); Cross Respondent: Temwell Pty Ltd; Cross Respondent: Slademere Pty Ltd; Cross Respondent: Shepridge Pty Ltd; Cross Respondent: Geoffrey Michael Tauber; Cross Respondent: Morry Fraid; Cross Respondent: Roger Enriquez
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Adjournment Application
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Court Discretion, Re Opening Case
Civil Procedure Adjournment Court Discretion Re Opening Case

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Temwell Pty Ltd

Applicant

DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)

First Respondent

mCOM Solutions Inc.

Second Respondent

Dragon Ventures. Com Inc

Third Respondent

mCOM Solutions Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)

Fourth Respondent

David Hains

Fifth Respondent

Robert Van Zanten

Sixth Respondent

Dragonventures.com Ltd

Seventh Respondent

Richard Hains

Eighth Respondent

Ian Morris Kiefel

Ninth Respondent

mCOM Solutions Inc.

Cross Claimant

mCOM Solutions Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)

Cross Claimant

Temwell Pty Ltd

Cross Respondent

Slademere Pty Ltd

Cross Respondent

Shepridge Pty Ltd

Cross Respondent

Geoffrey Michael Tauber

Cross Respondent

Morry Fraid

Cross Respondent

Roger Enriquez

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjournment of the case should be granted
  2. 2 Whether applicant may later seek leave to re-open its case

Ratio Decidendi

It would be an inappropriate exercise of the Court's discretion to grant an adjournment in the absence of clear indication of what the further evidence is, particularly considering potential prejudice to respondents and their preparation for hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • The application for adjournment is refused.